A MULTIVARIATE FIELD STUDY OF PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE; GROSS CONSUMPTION OF THE MASS MEDIA; AND MACHIAVELLIANISM, ANOMIA AND SELF-ESTEEM

Joseph C. Phllport

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1975

sor Department of Speech

apresentative

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY UBRARY ABSTRACT

A review of the motivations and gratifications area of mass communication research indicated the need to investi­ gate meaningful patterns of media exposure and to relate those respective patterns to particular subgroups existing in the audience. This study addressed these two problems by employing multivariate methodology in a field setting. The variables included in the study were placed in one of three batteries of measurement that indicated: (l) mass media consumption, (2) patterns of television program exposure, and (3) personality (Machiavellianism, anomia, and self-esteem). In several analyses, demographic vari­ ables were included in the personality battery. Subjects were 124 adults living in Toledo, Ohio and the surrounding communities. Four canonical correlational analyses were conducted examining the relationships between the media consumption batteries and personality. The first analysis found a non­ significant relationship between gross consumption of the mass media and personality. However, the second analysis indicated a positive association between television con­ sumption and anomia; a negative association betwenn the consumption of television, socioeconomic status and educa­ tion. There was a negative association between the con­ sumption of books and magazines and anomia; and a positive association between the consumption of books and magazines, socioeconomic status, and education. Respondent’s exposure to the top twenty-eight tele­ vision programs of the 1974-1975 season was factor analyzed to operationalize patterns of television program exposure. The four factor solution accounted for 42 per cent of the total variance. A significant association was found between exposure to the programs in Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medlcal Center, Good Times and Carol Burnett), non-exposure to the programs in factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons and The Jeffersons) and anomia. In the final canonical correlation, two significant relationships were found. Viewers of Factor IV (All In the Family, Mary Tyler Moore and Bob Newhart) were found to be high in anomia and of lower levels of education. Respondents who viewed the programs in Factor I (Hawaii Flve-O, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco, and Sanford and SonJ and did not view il iii Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons and The Jeffersons) were found to be high In anomia and of an older age. The study uncovered a relationship between multi­ variate patterns of mass media exposure and personality. Further research is needed to explore the dimensions under­ lying similar patterns of association in the audience’s transaction with the mass media. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Barbara, whose love is my joy. Special recognization is given to Drs. David Clark and Raymond Tucker. Their respective expertise in mass communication theory and multivariate data analysis were valuable assets available to this researcher. My thanks to Dr. Anthony Maltese for his encourage­ ment and direction. My particular thanks to the many students who assisted me with the data collection and analysis stages of the research. I thank my friends and associates: Dick, Rob, Roger, Dave, Sue, Bonnie, Jim, Des, and Bob.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 A Multivariate Rationale...... 2 Research Purposes ...... 4 Relevant Communication Theory ...... 5 Machiavellianism ...... 12 Relevant Machiavellian Research ...... 13 The Para-Social Interaction and Machiavellianism ...... 15 Relevant Mass CommunicationR esearch .... 17 Field Study Tasks...... 27 Research Rationale ...... 32 Statement of Research Questions and Hypotheses...... 34 Analysis I: Gross Consumption of Mass Media and the Personality Profile...... 34 Analysis II: Gross Consumption of Mass Media, and Personality and Demographic Profile ... 35 Analysis III: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and the Personality Profile .... 35 Analysis IV: Patterns of Television Program Exposure, and the Personality and Demo­ graphic Profile ...... 35 II METHODS AND PROCEDURES...... 37 Design...... 37 Data Collection in General...... 38 v vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page The Sample...... 39 Interviewing Procedures and Problems .... 40 Variables and Coding...... 43 Mach V Attitude Inventory ...... 43 Anomia Scale ...... 44 Self-Esteem Scale ...... 46 Age ...... 46 Socioeconomic Status ...... 47 Level of Education...... 47 Sex ...... 47 Television Consumption ...... 48 Radio Consumption...... 48 Newspaper Consumption ...... 48 Book Consumption...... 49 Magazine Consumption ...... 49 Television Program Consumption ...... 49 , Factor Analysis of Television Program Exposure ...... 50 Canonical Correlation ...... 55 Basic Overview of Computational Procedures...... 56 The Interpretation of Canonical Correlation...... 57 Battery Composition and Canonical Analyses...... 59 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page III RESULTS...... 64 Analysis I: Gross Consumption of Mass Media and. the Personality Profile ...... 65 Analysis II: Gross Consumption of Mass Media and, the Personality and Demo­ graphic Profile ...... 67 Factor Analysis of Television Program Exposure...... 70 Analysis III: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and the Personality Profile .... 80 Analysis IV: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and, the Personality and Demo­ graphic Profile ...... 82 Summary of Results...... 90 Hypothesis I: The subtests of the Gross Consumption of Mass Media battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l) ...... 90 Hypothesis II: The subtests of the Gross Consumption of Mass Media battery, and the Personality and Demographic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l) ...... 91 Hypothesis III: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Exposure battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l) . 92 Hypothesis IV: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Exposure battery, and the Personality and Demographic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l)...... 92 vili

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page IV CONCLUSIONS...... 95 Summary of Findings...... 95 Discussion of Findings ...... 97 Mass Media Consumption ...... 97 Factor Analysis of Television Program Exposure...... 99 Patterns of Television Program Exposure . . 102 Alienation...... 106 Machiavellianism ...... 106 Self-Esteem...... 107 Limitations...... 108 Survey Procedures ...... 108 Instrument ...... 109 Factor Analysis ...... 110 Canonical Correlation ...... Ill Implications for Future Research ...... Ill Identifying Meaningful Patterns of Media Behavior...... 112 Content Analyze Programs in Media Behavior Patterns ...... 112 Continuation of the Analysis of Media Behavior and Personality ...... 113 Investigate the Relationship Between Program Appeals and Personality ...... 113 Within Media Behavior Pattern Analysis . . 114 Between Media Behavior Pattern Analysis . . 114 Alienation and Media Behavior ...... 114 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 116 APPENDIX A...... 127 APPENDIX B...... 135 APPENDIX C...... 146 APPENDIX D...... 149 APPENDIX E...... 152 APPENDIX F...... 155 APPENDIX G...... 158 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I 1974-75 Television Programs Incorporated in the Analyses...... 51 II Schematic Presentation of Analysis I: Gross Consumption of Mass Media and the Personality Profile ...... 60 III Schematic Presentation of Analysis II: Gross Consumption of Mass Media, and the Personality and Demographic Profile ...... 6l IV Schematic Presentation of Analysis III: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and the Personality Profile...... 62 V Schematic Presentation of Analysis IV: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and, the Personality and Demographic Profile .... 63 VI Means and Standard Deviations of Variables for Analysis I: Gross Consumption of Mass Media and the Personality Profile .... 66 VII Structure for Analysis I: Canonical Correlation of Gross Consumption of the Mass Media (Battery X) and the Personality Profile (Battery Y)...... 68 VIII Means and Standard Deviations of Variables for Analysis II: Gross Consumption of Mass Media, and the Personality and Demographic Profile...... 69 IX Structure for Analysis II: Canonical Correlation of Gross Consumption of the Mass Media (Battery X) and the Personality and Demographic Profile (Battery Y) ...... 71 X Components for Redundancy for Analysis II: Canonical Correlation of Gross Consumption of the Mass Media, and the Personality and Demographic Profile ...... 73 XI Means and Standard Deviations of Variables for Factor Analysis of Television Program Exposure...... 75 x xi LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE Page XII Rotated Factor Matrix: Television Program Exposure ...... 77 XIII Means and Standard Deviations of Variables for Analysis III: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and the Personality Profile...... 81 XIV Structure for Analysis III: Canonical Correlation of Patterns of Television Program Exposure (Battery X) and the Personality Profile (Battery Y)...... 83 XV Components for Redundancy for Analysis III: Canonical Correlation of Patterns of Television Program Exposure and the Personality Profile ...... 84 XVI Means and Standard Deviations of Variables for Analysis IV: Patterns of Television Program Exposure and, the Personality and Demographic Profile ...... 86 XVII Structure for Analysis IV: Canonical Correlation of Patterns of Television Program Exposure (Battery X) and, the Personality and Demographic Profile (Battery Y) ...... 87 XVIII Components for Redundancy for Analysis IV: Canonical Correlation of Patterns of Television Program Exposure (Battery X), and Personality and Demographic Profile (Battery Y) ...... 89 Chapter I

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Several decades of mass communication research have indicated that isolated personality variables are not very fruitful predictors of communication behaviors (Weiss, 1971)» However, in her seminal contribution to the ’’uses and gratifications'* approach to mass communication, Herzog (1944) has suggested that "... a detailed investigation of the personality characteristics of listeners and non­ listeners is clearly one of the most important lines for future research." In the para-social interaction between audience and media, Katz and Foulkes (1962) contend that the social and psychological attributes of individuals and groups shape their use of mass media and not vice versa. Indeed, few aspects of mass media behavior can be understood without considering personality. Much of the previous uses and gratifications research has been limited due to the tendency to generalize across audience members defined as the entire audience or at least certain major groups in the audience. Anderson and Meyer (1975) contend that a more meaningful analysis of behavior via the uses and gratifications approach would 2 consider the grouping of people according to common moti­ vational characteristics as opposed to simply grouping people demographically. In this study, media exposure motivation was operationalized in terms of personality characteristics affiliated with unique patterns of media behavior. Research has indicated little relationship between attitudes about the media and overt media behavior (McLeod and O’Keefe, 1972). Therefore, quantitative measures of media consump­ tion were utilized. Particular attention was given to the relationships between personality traits and demographic variables and: (1) patterns of mass media consumption, and (2) patterns of television program viewing.

A MULTIVARIATE RATIONALE

While the advent of high speed computers has only recently made multivariate data analysis a practical approach to the research question, its theoretical and methodological foundations were laid during the late nineteenth century. In a review of the development of multivariate analysis, Cattell (1966) draws a sharp contrast between the univariate perspective of the brass experimen­ talists of the Wundt-Pavlov tradition and the multivariate survey psychology initiated in the Galton-Thurstone move­ ment. Galton recognized the technique of the clinical psychologist as a subsection of a far broader and 3 developing methodology based on observations of ’’living people." His interest was in finding laws in the totality of human behavior, from sensory to social. The atomist bivariate, piecemeal approach must often fail when inappropriately applied, and these early explorers, including the Gestaltists, realized that it needed to be replaced by a method capable of a wholistic, multivariate regard for the totality of rela­ tions and pattern (1966, p. ?). Capitalizing on the difference between the Wundt- Pavlov and Galton-Thurstone schools, Cattell provides a definition of multivariate experimentation. At one extreme we have an experimenter who, as in the classical tradition of the physical sciences, works with two variables. On the other hand, especially when a later statistical analysis of factor analysis, canonical correlation, or multivariate anal­ ysis of variance is contemplated, the experi­ menter will generally plan to observe many variables simultaneously. This defines a multivariate experiment. (1966, p. 7). In comparison with the traditional univariate analysis, multivariate techniques provide a more appropriate method to investigate the interrelated matrix of media behavior produced when the audience encounters the multi­ dimensional mass media environment. McLuhan (1964) has referred to the television image as a complex mosaic mesh of light and dark spots which demands indepth participation and involvement by the audience. Becker (1969) has drawn an analogue between the image mosaic and the analysis of communication. He suggests that it would be fruitful 4 ". . . to conceive of the total field of communication stimuli which co-exist with any given person as a mosaic" (1968). However, previous media research has tended to analyze mass media consumption by isolating the individual’s behavior within a particular medium or media content. The statistical procedures of multivariate analysis allow mass media consumption to be considered as multiple variates working in combination to form a system. The multivariate perspective is founded in the notion that (media) variates are dependent among themselves so that researchers cannot split off one or more from the others and consider it by itself. The variates must be considered together (Cooley and Lohnes, 1971)«

RESEARCH PURPOSES

The sub-groups existing in the mass media audience can be defined by several categories of variables. This study investigated the multivariate relationship between several systems of variables. While most of the variables under examination have been univariately analyzed in previous media research, the present study placed the variables within one of two sets of variables. Consequently, the multivariate analysis employed identified unique patterns of mass media consumption and patterns of personality and demographic variables. The research purposes of this dissertation were 5 three fold. (1) The task of this associative field study was to identify multivariate constructs or patterns of interrelatedness between the two batteries. The analysis extracted unique patterns of media consumption associated with specific personality profiles existing in the sample. (2) In recent years, Machiavellianism (Christie and Gels, 19?0) has become a salient variable in interpersonal communication research. The inclusion of the Mach V Attitude Inventory in the Personality Profile Battery allowed for an exploratory examination of mass media con­ sumption patterns associated with an interpersonal orienta­ tion toward manipulation. Thus furthering understanding of the link between interpersonal and mass communication behaviors. (3) During the review of statistics for this analytic problem, canonical correlation was deemed most applicable. While canonical correlation was developed by Hotelling (1935» 1936) during the thirties, it has received little attention from mass communication researchers. Therefore, a final task was to Investigate the heuristic potential of the canonical model in mass communication research.

RELEVANT COMMUNICATION THEORY

As Elihu Katz (1959) has emphasized, neither inter­ personal nor mass communication can be thoroughly examined in isolation. Both areas have prospered from 6 the contributions of scholars in a variety of academic disciplines. In particular, the areas of sociology and psychology have provided major constructs in the foundation of communication theory. The theoretical base for this studywas founded in the humanistic school of communication. Three dimensions of human communication are relevant to the present analysis: (1) self-concept, (2) social integration, and (3) symbolic interaction. Self-concept is an essential dimension in the analysis of interpersonal behavior. Born from social interaction, it largely determines an individual’s communi­ cation behavior. Cooley (1902, 1956) was the first to develop the concept of the social self as the "reflected” or "looking glass" self and Mead further developed this notion. Self-conciousness involves the indivi­ dual’s becoming an object to himself by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself within an organized setting of social relationships (Mead, 1934, p. 225)» Raimy (1943) has defined self-concept as "the more or less perceptual object resulting from present and past observation." Therefore, the individual’s self-acceptance is dependent upon the reflection of self obtained through his daily social behavior. Since the self is the only thing the individual can put his faith in, its preservation soon becomes a goal in itself (Lecky, 1945). The complexity of the world often forces the individual to construct his own substitute world. His relationship with the real 7 world becomes a defensive encounter. While growth-oriented individuals enjoy the risk of exploring their selves and social environment, most of us tend to stay within safer and more stable areas of exchange (Luft, 1969)» Maslow (1966) classified this type of behavior as deficiency motivation and illustrated its strategy through an analogy drawn from Kurt Goldstein’s work with brain injured soldiers. Much of their behavior could be understood as an attempt to retain self-esteem and to avoid anxiety-producing confrontation with problems from which they could only expect defeat. To this end they first of all narrowed their own worlds in order to avoid problems they were incapable of handling.... Secondly, they ordered and structured these narrowed worlds carefully.... Thirdly, they tended to freeze them into static and un­ changing forms and to avoid change and flux. Their worlds were thus more predictable, more controllable, and less anxiety-oroducing (1966, p. 24). Symbolic interaction!sts; Mead, Piaget (1954), and Szasz (1961), contend that deficiency motivation is mani­ fested in the constant participation in a complicated mixture of various interpersonal games. The intricate nature of interpersonal games forces the individual to victimize other persons in a series of maneuvers, charac­ terized by an emotional pay-off which reduces anxiety and are designed to preserve the participant’s psychic stability. The preoccupied game player finds little occasion for psychological comfort and intimacy in his daily inter­ personal transactions. 8 The habitual game player displays a natural reluc­ tance to cope with the ’’other” in his transactions. In his pre-occupation with anxiety reduction and psychic stability, he neglects such positively valued concepts as sharing, mutuality, reciprocal relationships, service, and interaction. These concepts are part of a social process which is dependent on a well developed sense of the “other” and demands the surrender of an earlier and deep seated pattern of egocentrism. Adapting the humanistic perspective to mass communi­ cation, Wiebe (1969) contends that mass media content represents an alternative for the interpersonal transaction. Presenting images and symbols (but never real people), the media allow the individual to revert to an earlier pattern of taking without deference to the reciprocal needs of the giver. Thus, providing the participant with a sense of participation without the accommodation required in the true interpersonal transaction. The fact that media messages provide the Illusion of interaction together with Immunity from the “other” seems to relate a basic psychological factor to media audience behavior.... The per­ missiveness and phenomenal solitude that generally characterized the reception of media messages maximize the opportunity and likeli­ hood that they will be selected and perceived in ways that minister to intrapersonal impulse gratification (Wiebe, 1969» pp. 527 and 532). Horton and Wohl (1956) have focused specifically on the relationship between the audience and the radio and 9 television personality. These media provide their audiences with the illusion of face-to-face communication. Horton and Wohl have named this illusory relationship the para­ social interaction. The audience, for its part, responds with something more than mere running observation; it is, as it were, subtly insinuated into the program’s action and internal social relationships and by dint of this kind of staging is ambiguously transformed into a group which observes and participates in a show by turns. The more the performer seems to adjust his performance to the supposed response of the audience, the more the audience tends to make the response anticipated. This simulation of conversational give and take may be called para-social interaction (Horton and Wohl, 1956» p. 215). Lacking the effective reciprocity of the interper­ sonal transaction, the media transaction is characteristically one-sided and nondialectical. Once initiated, it is under the control of the media performer. It is not susceptible to or dependent upon mutual development. However, the per­ former offers the audience an illusion of intimacy. He provides a continuing relationship and his media fans tend to believe they know him by knowing his character and por­ trayed values and motives. To the isolated fan, the per­ former offers a friend, counselor, comforter, and model. By the habltual consumption of a particular program, the fan accumulates a historical picture of "the kinds of people they really are," and tends to believe that he is involved in a fellowship with the performer by extension. Horton and Wohl contend that the para-social roles, 10 acceptable to the Individual, are positively correlated to the systems of patterned roles and social situations which the individual is involved with in his everyday life. The spectator must be capable of playing the part demanded of him and the actions of the media performer must be com- patable with the self-concept of the spectator; there must be a congruent relationship. In other words, the self- concept, as a system of role-patterns and self-conceptions (with their implicated norms and values) must be correlated to the kind of self postulated in the program scheme. When the pro-offered role of the program does not closely fit the "role prescription" of the spectator, he will probably reject the program. The total acceptance of the plethora of programs, without the necessary personality qualifica­ tions, will lead to greater dissatisfaction and alienation (Horton and Wohl, 1956, pp. 220, 221). Three reasons have been postulated for the partici­ pation in para-social roles. First, the para-social role may suggest an ideal pattern of behavior. The role may reflect a successful version of a role the individual encounters in his everyday life. Secondly, the para-social interaction may exemplify a pattern of conduct the individual can utilize to understand and cope with others as well as those patterns he must apply to himself. Finally, the interaction may provide the individual with an opportunity for the playing of roles for which he believes he has claim, 11 but which he finds little opportunity for assuming in his social environment (Horton and Wohl, 1956, p. 222). From the habitual participation in interpersonal games to the selection of pro-offered media roles congruent with the spectator’s own self-concept, the deficiency motivated individual constantly attempts to control the images and symbols employed in the communication process. “When game playing becomes a way of life characterized by a strong need for control, the salient personality variable is referred to as manipulation." (Boehner, 1971» P* 11)» While manipulation has not been previously employed as a personality trait in an analysis of audience-media behavior, it is ironic that a television character has been used to exemplify the devious control typical of the inter­ personal manipulator. Shostrum asks (1967» P» M» "how many lessons in manipulating did he (Sergeant Bilko) teach a generation?" By using television’s Bilko, the manipulator of an entire army for personal exploitation, Shostrum also emphasizes that the mass media are "fantastically weighted on the side of manipulation" (1967» P» 4). Shostrum indicates that manipulation is a lifetime orientation toward interpersonal communication. A manipulator is a person who exploits, uses, or controls himself and others as "things" in self- defeating ways....(T)he modern manipulator has developed from our "scientific" emphasis as well as from our marketplace orientation, which sees man as a thing to know about, to influence, and to manipulate (1967. p. 11). 12 MACHIAVELLIANISM

Approximately twenty years ago, Christie and his associates at Columbia University began an Investigation of the personality trait of manipulation. Christie’s inter­ est in this phemonenon originated during his examination of the manipulative techniques employed by political and reli­ gious leaders of extremist groups. He discovered the basic characteristics of manipulation in the writings of political scientist, Machiavelli (see Ebensteln, i960). Machiavelll’s The Prince (1513) is recognized as one of the most revolu­ tionary political essays of its time. Prior to Mach­ iavelli, all political writing—from Plato to the Renais­ sance—had been concerned with the "end of the state." Machiavelli ignored that issue and assumed that power is an end in itself. Disregarding morality, ethics and reli­ gion, he inquired into the means best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power (Ebensteln, i960, p. 280). After extensive testing and refinement of several psychometric instruments, composed of scales based on Machiavelli’s writings; Christie and his associates developed the Mach V Attitude Inventory (Christie and Gels, 1970). An essential characteristic of Christie’s Machia­ vellianism is an orientation toward manipulation in inter­ personal relations (rather than political behavior). A 13 high score on the Mach test indicates an orientation to treat other people as objects to be controlled rather than individuals with whom to develop harmonious relationships. The high Mach displays a lack of conventional morality and possesses a low level of ideological commitment. However, Robinson and Shaver (1973, P« 592) caution against the perjorative implications which the political term "Machia­ vellianism" suggest. None of the interpersonal research associated with Machiavellianism has indicated that the high Mach is more hostile, vindictive, or vicious than the low Mach. Contrary to the implications surrounding the term, the high Mach appears to possess a cool detachment which makes him/her less emotionally involved with people, sensitive issues, or with saving face in embarrassing situations (1973, P* 592). The high Mach characteristically displays a lack of affect in interpersonal relationships.

RELEVANT MACHIAVELLIAN RESEARCH

To date, Machiavellianism has not been related to mass communication behavior. Therefore, the review of Machiavellianism literature is parsimonious and included to reflect some of the major interpersonal findings. Three relevant situational properties have been reported by Christie and Gels: (l) face-to-face interaction, either in a dyadic or small group situation; (2) arousing irrelevant affect, the display of emotional states of 14 excitement, fear, shame, anger, etc. (as related to an experimental task); and (3) lattitude for improvisation toward solving the task. In thirteen of fourteen studies, where these situational properties were present and the criterion variable was winning or behaving as predicted, high Machs displayed predicted behavior significantly when compared with low Machs (1970, pp. 290-293)» It should be noted that in several of these experiments, the ability to win was dependent upon cheating, role-playing, or supporting a position contrary to the individual’s beliefs. Under these conditions, the high Mach’s salient characteristic was ’’coolness” or detachment. He possessed the ability to resist social influence. The high Mach was oriented toward cognitions; he tended to initiate and control the structure of the communication. In contrast to the high Mach, the low Mach was much more susceptible to social influence. He was primarily oriented toward the participants rather than cognitions. Instead of attempting to control the structure of the communication, he was more likely to accept and follow a given structure. The low Mach was : Much more open to others and liable to becoming affectively involved with them or with his own concerns. He becomes more engrossed in the con­ tent of the conversation...and...is more likely to get carried away in the process of interacting with others and acting upon the basis of non- cognitive reaction to the situation (Christie and Geis, cited in Boehner, 1971» P» 20). 15 Other small group research investigating Machiavel­ lianism Indicates that high Machs display more risk-taking behavior than low Machs. Rim (1966) using Kogan and Wallach’s risk-taking problems, found that high Machs tended not only to be greater influencers of the group, but also were more likely to shift the group toward risky directions (cited in Boehner, 1971). Gels, Krupert, and Berber (1965) found high Machs also tended to take over leaderless dis­ cussions.

THE PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION AND MACHIAVELLIANISM

While experimental studies indicate that high and low Machs behave differently in interpersonal transactions, a question arises as to whether similar differences can be predicted in the para-social interaction between the audience and mass media. A major difference between the interpersonal transaction and the reception of media content is founded in Wiebe’s contention that media content is selected and received for the purpose of intrapersonal impulse gratifica­ tion. While recognizing this important difference, several dimensions of Machiavellian behavior, nevertheless, represent salient variables which can be associated with mass media consumption. Of particular interest are the high Mach’s tendencies toward: (1) cognitions rather than irrelevant affect, (2) preference for improvisation rather than rigid structure, and (3) willingness to move into risk-taking 16 directions. These interpersonal tendencies appear to intuitively relate to media selection based on: (1) message complexity, (2) the degree of affillative inter­ action within the message, (3) the predictability of the message, and (4) degree of confrontation between values and roles presented in the message and the value system of the individual. Utilizing media consumption as a criterion variable, Machiavellianism can be associated with both gross exposure to the mass media and exposure to a specific media content. Horton and Wohl suggest that habitual patterns of exposure to a particular media content are based on a congruent relationship between the individual’s self-concept and the proffered role of the program. With television programming as an example, the following relationships are postulated: (1) Low Machs will prefer situation comedies as opposed to action-adventure programs. The plot of the situation comedy often evolves around the affiliatlve behavior of the cast, rather than the solution of a complex cognitive problem. (2) High Machs will prefer action adventure programs. Such programs focus on the solution of a complex and often dangerous problem which requires manipulative behavior. While the above relationships have not been pre­ viously examined, mass communication researchers have traditionally examined those people who consume a media message and what purposes (functions) are being served (Anderson and Meyer, 1975, p. 18). 17

RELEVANT MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

The functional orientation toward mass communication (Wright, I960) has traditionally emphasized the examination of the functions the media serve rather than specific effects they produce. Merton (1957) states that the functional approach is concerned with the consequences of social phenomena which affect the operation, adaptation, or adjustment to a given system. The mass media constitute such phenomena. The object of analysis represents a standardized (i.e. patterned and repetitive) item, such as social roles, institutional patterns. Social processes, cultural patterns, culturally patterned emotions, social norms, group organization, social structure, devices for social control, etc. (Merton, 1957. p. 50). The functional analysis of mass communication was initiated during the 1940’s. Several of the primary researchers contributing to this approach Include: Waples, Berelson, and Bradshaw (1940), Herzog (1944), Warner and Henry (1948), Wolfe and Piske, (1949), Elkin (1951). Maccoby (1951 and 1954), Riley and Riley (1951), Bogart (1955). Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955). McPhee and Meyersohn (1955), Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince (1958). Bailyn (1959) and Wright (i960). The above researchers have investigated media con­ sumption, audience motivation, and audience gratification across a variety of media. Most were concerned with the illusory concept of the '’escapist1' use of media. A major 18 weakness of "escapist" research Involves the labelling of a program as "escapist" based purely on its content, rather than on validly established uses to which the audience may put selected content. Smythe (1954), in assuming a transact!onist perspective between the mass media and its audience, explains, ". . .audience members act on the program content. They take it and mold it in the image of their own individual needs and values" (p. 143). Extra-media factors determine the escapist use of media. Especially important in determining the uses of media are the social, physical, and personal characteristics of its particular audience. The audience selects from the vast amount of media content, the media fare which most serves its needs. "The fact that the material may be "escapist" is purely an artifact" (Klapper, i960, p. 176). Without the development of a causal relationship between media exposure and any gross psychopathology in the audience, two schools of thought have developed. One con­ tends that the media ©reates an unreal picture of the world and diverts the audience from real life; rendering them Incapable of facing social problems. This school maintains that while fantasy content may reduce tension temporarily, the real source of tension remains unaffected. Mascoby (1951 and 1954) and Lewln (1953) view the habitual selection of "escapist" media fare as a tendency to avoid real problems or to seek solutions by fantastic or violent means 19 (cited, in Klapper, I960, p. 169) - Further, Lazarsfeld and Merton (1948) contend that the media may serve a "narcotizing dysfunction." Suggesting that close attention to media accounts of public affairs may act as a substitute for social action and may, for some people, lead to social apathy. The second school contends that the effects of fantasy content are not dysfunctional. Several researchers have developed the initial perspective of Waples, Berelson, and Bradshaw (1940), stressing that the fantasy content in media provides the functions of relaxation and diversion. The media fare allows members of the audience to vicariously try an assortment of the roles depicted and provides a harmless release of aggression. For example, Waples, Berelson, and Bradshaw, In their examination of the print media by a case history technique, found that the print media furnished a compensatory function to the frustrated by providing them with an opportunity for achievement through vicarious indentiflcation with successful people. Herzog (1944), in a study of radio soap operas, was the first to thoroughly examine the motivations and grati­ fications derived by listeners of the serials. Almost half of the Iowa survey population claimed that this format of programs helped them to deal with problems encountered in their normal life. Her research suggested three gratifica­ tions derived from the programs: (1) emotional release, 20 (2) wishful thinking or compensation for failures in the listener’s own life through identification, and (3) advice. Women who claimed to worry more than other women tended to listen to serials with greater frequency. Also, the lower the educational level of the listener, the more likely she was to perceive the program as helpful in day- to-day life situations. Examining the impact of comic book readership among children, Wolfe and Fiske (1949) classified children as either moderate readers or fans. The moderate readers progressed through three stages of reading. In the early stage, the children used the comics as a means of ego strengthening through projection. During the second stage the children began to Identify with characters. Finally they began to read educational comics. However, the fan, regardless of age, remained at the hero stage and Identified with fantastic comics heros. The fans were also more neurotic than the non-fans and were searching for an authority figure. The comic heroes provided their fans with indications of answers to difficult issues, and enabled them to perform daily tasks with reduced anxiety. Warner and Henry (1948) were among the first to employ projective tests to determine the personality characteristics of the audiences of particular radio programs. They administered the Thematic Apperception Test to the listeners and non-listeners of the radio 21 serial: Big Sister. Their results Indicated differences between the listener and non-listener with respect to personality, conflict, values, and behavorial patterns. Specifically, the devotees were found to be characterized by "reduced imagination and personal (psychological) resources...(and to be given to) impulse suppression." Their outer world was found to be house and family centered, monotonous, and personally unrewarding, but they were deeply apprehensive "of the unknown." Their interpersonal relations were found to be stereotyped and strained. They felt that they were engaged in a "struggle for personal control" (cited in Klapper, I960, p. 187). The findings indicated that Big Sister functioned as a symbol system, projecting solutions of how problems in the program could be solved were they encountered in real life, Warner and Henry concluded that the program performed a positive and supportive function for its listeners. Slkin (1951), in an examination of the content of Western movies, attributed similar positive functions contributed by those respective movies to children. Research conducted by Riley and Riley, Maccoby, Himmelweit, et al., and Bailyn (during the fifties) provided indications of the functions that the pictorial mass media provide for children. Riley and Riley (1950) found that children in the fifth through seventh grades were more likely to prefer "escapist" material when they had little interaction with members of their peer groups. They concluded that children with low levels of interaction were 22 more frustrated and more likely to identify with animal characters (such as Bugs Bunny) who were portrayed as an evader of responsibility. These children were more likely to Identify with their favorite characters than to seek media as a source of advice. Maccoby (1954) found a direct relationship between the level of frustration and amount of television viewing exposure to popular fiction. Similarly, McPhee and Meyersohn (1955) found that listeners of radio programs simulating social interaction were isolated when listening to those programs. While these studies suggest that the media provide members of the audience with a vicarious means of social Interaction, Bogart’s (1955) investigation of the role of newspaper comic strips among lower income males indicated that this particular media content served as a common ground for social intercourse. Lower income men with relatively low levels of education did not perceive the comic strips as real. However, they did utilize them in social conversation; in an avoidance of personal commitment and the discussion of controversial issues. Stress has been identified as an Important variable in relation to "escapist" viewing. Pearlin (1956 and 1959) related four indices of stress with "escapist" and "reality" viewers of television. The four components of stress identified by Pearlin were: (1) frustrated aspirations for 23 realizing upward mobility, (2) fearful wariness of intimate social relations, (3) tendencies to gather people to serve as a buffer against any unpleasant situations that might arise, and (4) negative views of the world surrounding the individual (1959» PP* 257, 258). In each of the four indices, a significant relationship was found with preference for "escapist” viewing. Pearlin concludes: Apparently, television offers relief from the anxious viligance of a person who feels vulner­ able to other persons or needs other persons as protection from the uncertainties of the world. And when the world is viewed with hopelessness, escape becomes a much more likely response than an attempt to deal with it directly. It is doubtful whether television propels its escape viewers into a euphoria; more likely they use it simply to forget for intermittent and brief times their troubles and worries (1959, PP« 258, 259)« Continuing an Investigation of stress and television exposure, Hazard (1965 and 1967) studied the relationship between anxiety and preferences for television fantasy. His hypothesis was based on the contention that in situations where self-esteem is involved, individuals meet supposed threats with characteristic defense mechanisms. Therefore, habitual responses to the mass media become a stabilized defense against anxiety. Anxiety was measured by a short form of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and television exposure was operationalized by the naming of the respon­ dent’s favorite program(s) (content analysis was employed to determine the level of fantasy for each program). Only 24 a slight relationship was found, between anxiety and. preference for fantasy. However, when cultural isolation and social participation were entered into the analysis, addtional information was gained. Hazard concluded that fantasy television has a primary audience composed of anxious individuals who avoid cultural contact and who are of low social status (196?, p. 469). Several scholars have investigated the relationship between personality and preferences toward a particular medium. Anast (1966) found a modest relationship between dimensions of personality and media preference. Personality was based on Jung's character types. Using the Myer- Briggs Type Indicator, three types of personality were operationized: (l) a sensation-intuition dimension, (2) an introversion-extroversion dimension and (3) a thinking­ feeling dimension. Results indicated that television and movie fans fit Jung's sensation oriented personality type, while the readers of novels fit the intuitive dimension (1966, p. 713). It should be noted that sex was an inter­ vening variable with respect to the introversion-extro­ version dimension and the thinking-feeling dimension. Males giving movies a high rating tended to be introverted, while females similarly rating movies tended to be extroverted. The thinking-feeling dimension only produced high correla­ tions among males. While heavy television and movie consumption positively correlated with feeling, preferences 25 for novels and non-fiction reading positively correlated with thinking. McLeod, Ward, and Tancil (1965-1966) investigated the sociologically derived concept of alienation (social mallntegration) and uses of the mass media. Only little support was given to the prediction that alienation would be positively correlated with time spent with the media. However, the two largest correlations between alienation and media consumption were found with radio and television. Negative correlations were found between alienation and exposure to magazines and books (1965-1966, p. 587). Education was found to be a key demographic variable in the analysis. The level of education was negatively correlated with radio and television exposure while positively correlated with exposure to the print media. A more recent Investigation of alienation and self­ esteem was included in a review of five surveys by Hobinson (1971). He cites results drawn from a national sample of television viewers (LoSciuto, 1971). LoSciuto analyzed alienation and self-esteem against the amount of television exposure of the viewers. He explored the following question: ...(W)hether those with high alienation, low self-esteem, and low life satisfaction are heavier and more avid viewers than their counterparts at the reverse ends of these scales (1971» p. 75). While the average viewing time across the survey 26 population was approximately 3« 3 hours per day, viewers scoring relatively high on the alienation scale or relatively low on the self-esteem scale averaged 4.0 and 3.7-4.0 hours respectively (Robinson, 1971, p. 573). In order to investi­ gate the power of these variables beyond social class, multiple classifification analysis (for a description of MCA see Andrews, et al. 1967) was employed to hold constant the effects of sex, education, race, and age. The analysis indicated that the effects of alienation and self-esteem were only slightly attenuated by the demographic variables. Viewers who felt alienated or who had low self-esteem still viewed approximately a half hour more television per day.. Only education and race produced nearly as much variation as did alienation and self-esteem (Robinson, 1971. p. 575). The previous research has examined the functions that isolated patterns of media exposure provide the audience. The initial research, in the functional per­ spective, investigated the motivations and gratifications derived from exposure to a particular content within a medium. Another approach related isolated personality variables with media consumption. Initially stress or anxiety was viewed as an important variable in the func­ tional analysis. More recently, alienation and self-esteem have been associated with media consumption. In most studies employing psychometric variables, demographic 27 variables have been included in the analysis. An Innovative study (Monaghan, et al., 197^) was designed to extract clusters of the television audience based on preferences toward operationalized television appeals. Utilizing Stevenson’s Q-technique (1953)» respondents were instructed to rank 36 hypothetical television programs (each program was composed of varying levels of program appeals identified as: (1) reality, (2) values, (3) complexity, and (4) seriousness. The results indicated two clusters or types of viewers: (1) ’•Mr. Happy World” and (2) "Mr. Realistic Conflict” (1974, p. 139). "Mr. Happy World" preferred programs containing nostalgic human interest, realistic science, and light humor and entertainment. "Mr. Realistic Conflict" preferred reality-oriented adventure programs containing dramatic conflict between good and evil. While the Q-technique identified audience clusters associated with preferences of program appeals, it, unfortunately, could not indicate the psychometric and demographic traits of the two audience clusters.

FIELD STUDY TASKS

This researcher has indicated the salience of Machiavellianism in interpersonal communication theory and stated that the present study would investigate the relationship between Machiavellianism and mass media 28 consumption. However, previous mass media research utilizing psychometric variables have generally failed to produce significant relationships between isolated personality measures and tendencies toward consumption of particular isolated media or media content. This failure is largely due to univariate research techniques. The univariate approach isolates the personality trait under investigation by removing (or assuming constant) the "contaminating" effects of concomitant traits; despite the fact that the personality trait under examination does not exist in isolation. The key principle of multivariate analysis is that of accounting for simultaneous joint effects of multiple traits whose independence cannot be assumed (Sells, 1966, p. 842). This procedure allows for a multi-dimen­ sional examination of human personality. Three dimensions of human communication were previously discussed: (1) self-concept, (2) social integration, and (3) symbolic interaction. Drawing from components of these dimensions, a traidic profile of personality will be operationalized. Relating to self- concept, self-esteem (or self-acceptance) taps feelings of "liking" of one self. Alienation Indicates a negative view of society or social malintegratlon. Mach1avelllanlsm represents a specific orientation in symbolic interaction, namely Interaction directed toward the manipulation and control of others and self. By synthesizing the three 29 dimensions into one personality profile, the interactive ’•effects” of the dimensions can be investigated. While there has recently been a de-emphasis of the Social Categories Theory (DeFleur, 1970), demographic variables remain an important component of mass media research. In the review of studies employing personality variables, demographic variables have proven to be key intervening variables when related to media consumption. McLeod and O’Keefe (1972), stress the necessity of Including demographic variables to identify the age or life cycle position and social structural constraints operating in media sub-audiences. Several key demographic variables were incorporated into the present study. Thus, the personality profile was composed of personality traits, life cycle position and social structural constraints. The ’’criterion” variables in this study were batteries of mass media consumption. As the reviewed research has indicated, several studies have focused on measuring gross exposure to a particular medium. However, several researchers contend that media exposure might be better conceptualized as a system; rather than analyzing each medium separately. Contrary to a unidimensional model of media behavior (Westley and Barrow, 1959; Deutschmann, 1963), studies have investigated the relationship of television to other mass media. Bogart (1956) has found that magazine reading was lower in households with tele­ vision. Weiss (1969) found that people who acquired 30 television sets spent less time with other mass media. Television was found to be a functional equivalent favored over radio, movies, and reading. This contention is supported by Robinson’s cross-national survey of television and leisure time. Twenty eight per cent of all leisure time was spent viewing television, more than twice as much time than spent with all other media combined (1969» p. 213). The Indication that an individual’s gross inter­ action with one medium is related to his interaction with other media has encouraged this researcher to consider the gross consumption of mass media as a multivariate system. This gross consumption battery was composed of indices for television, radio, newspapers, books, and magazines. The apparent ubiquity of television in comparison to the other mass media has lead this investigator to examine audience preferences within that medium. Most television research supports Stephenson’s (1967) contention that the audience uses television for entertainment and as a pleasurable experience. Isreal and Robinson (1971) found that only twenty per cent of television viewers listed news or educational programs as their favorites. Therefore, only a very low percentage of television viewing could be classified as information seeking behavior (Troldahl, 1966-67). Robinson (1971) found that only ten per cent of a national sample listed information seeking as 31 the reason for watching television. Dramatic and situation comedy programs are viewed with the highest levels of attention (LoSciuto, 1971). His findings indicated that more viewers: (1) planned to watch these programs, (2) viewed these programs from beginning to end, and (3) stated that these programs were worth watching. Similar findings were reported by Bechtel, Achelpohl, and Akers (1971). With sixty per cent of the television audience naming entertainment and relaxation as the primary reasons for viewing (LoSciuto, 1971), this researcher decided to examine patterns of prime time television viewing. A major methodological concern involved the categorization of programs. One method employed in previous research places programs into content categories based on the substance or form of a particular program (e.g. the classification of a program as a dramatic, variety, situation comedy, or sports program) (Smythe, 1954). However, there are several problems encountered when content categories are related to audience behavior. Smythe (1954) suggests that patterns of programs based on content are restructured by members of the audience to fit the image of their own Individual needs. Watt and Krull (1972) have found that the usual program content categories have lower intracategory viewing correlations than other methods of classification. Thus a person indicating 32 situation comedy as his favorite type of program may not view most of the situation comedies. Westly and Lynch (1962); Kirsh and Banks (1962); Swanson (1967); Wells; (1969); and Frank, Becknell, and Clokey (1971) have explored the use of the multivariate technique of factor analysis to extract patterns of television program viewing behavior. Rather than placing programs into dimensions based on their form, these researchers factored programs based on either the number of times individual viewers watched the program or the viewer’s TV Q scale evaluation of the program; evaluating the program from "one of my favorites” to "have never seen the program” (for a description of the TV Q rating, see Lichty and Ripley, 1969, PP« 291-296). Critics of the factor analytic technique contend that it does not reveal program types (Ehrenberg, 1968). However, it should be noted that this technique is not intended to reproduce substantive program categories, but rather to identify patterns of viewing behavior. Wells (1969) found the factors derived from reports of viewing were markedly similar to factors produced from preference ratings. He further suggests that while the influences of scheduling and channel were apparent, they were much smaller than the influence of program content (1969, p« 27).

RESEARCH RATIONALE In light of the exploratory nature of this study, 33 specifically with respect to: (1) the inauguration of Machiavellianism in mass media research, (2) the multivariate analysis of personality and mass media consumption, and (3) the implementation of canonical correlation in mass media research; the tasks were most basic. Katz and Foulkes (1962) have demonstrated that the motivations and gratifica­ tions perspective can be dichotomized into two schools. The first developed during the 1940’s around the research of Herzog (1944); Waple, Berelson, and Bradshaw (1940); and Wolfe and Fiske (1949). This school investigated the functions served by a specific media content. During the 1950’s another school of researchers began to classify individuals based on psychological and social attributes and measured media consumption as a "criterion" variable. Seminal contributors to this approach were made by Warner and Henry (1949), Riley and Riley, (1950), Maccoby (1954), Himmelweit et al. (1958), and Bailyn (1959). The present study was based on the second school of the motivations and gratifications perspective. The task was to investigate the multivariate relationship between the personality profile (composed of measures of Machiavel­ lianism, alienation, and self-esteem) and batteries measuring gross exposure to the mass media and patterns of exposure to prime time television programs. Four canonical correla­ tions were run; two with each of the media consumption batteries. In the initial analysis with each of the media 34 batteries, the personality profile consisted of the three measures listed above. A second canonical correlation (with each media battery) incorporated several key demo­ graphic variables in the personality profile. This allowed for a simultaneous analysis of the interrelatedness of the psychometric and demographic variables in association with media consumption.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

While previous researchers have examined the association between several isolated personality variables and exposure to an isolated medium or media content, this investigator recognized the need to examine the interactive association between a system of personality and demographic variables and systems of mass media exposure. Four separate canonical correlations investigated these relationships. Based on the reviewed research, this study explored the following questions and hypotheses: ANALYSIS I: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE Questions: What is the minimum number of traits that would have to be controlled or partialled out in order to eliminate all important linear relations between sets X (Measures of Gross Consumption of Mass Media) and Y Personality Profile)—that is, in order to change all the elements of RXy to zero or near zero? In other words, how many traits are needed to explain the relationships between sets X and Y? What is the nature of those traits (Darlington, 1973)• Hypothesis I: The subtests of the Gross Consumption of Mass Media battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l).a 35

ANALYSIS II: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA, AND PERSONALITY AND DSMbGRAPHIC PROFILE Questions: What is the minimum number of traits that would have to be controlled or partiailed out in order to eliminate all Important linear relations between sets ,X (Measures of Gross Consumption of Mass Media) and Y (Personality and Demographic Profile)—that is, in order to change all the elements of Rxy to zero or near zero? In other words, how many traits are needed to explain the relationships between sets X and Y? What is the nature of those traits? Hypothesis II: The subtests of the Gross Consumption of Mass Media battery, and the Personality and Demo­ graphic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l).

ANALYSIS III: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE Questions: What is the minimum number of traits that would have to be controlled or partialled out in order to eliminate all important linear relations between sets X (Patterns of Television Program Exposure) and Y (Personality Profile)—that is in order to change all the elements of R to zero or near zero? In other words, how many traits are needed to explain the relationships between sets X and Y? What is the nature of those traits? Hypothesis III: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Program Exposure battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l).

ANALYSIS IV: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE, AND THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Questions: What is the minumum number of traits that would have to be controlled or partialled out in order to eliminate all important linear relations between sets X (Patterns of Television Program Exposure) and Y (Personality and Demographic Profile)— 36 that is, in order to change all the elements of R to zero or near zero? In other words, how many * traits are needed to explain the relationships between sets X and Y? What is the nature of those traits? Hypothesis IV: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Exposure battery, and the Personality and Demographic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l). aThe value k shown in parentheses at the end of the hypothesis gives the number of traits which the hypothesis specifies must be controlled for in order to eliminate all relationships between the two sets of variables. Chapter II

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

DESIGN

This investigation was conducted as an associative field study (Baker and Shutz, 1972). The associative study differs from an experimental design in that the variables under examination are observed in a natural setting rather than manipulated into levels of an experimental measure (e.g. in an experimental design, a violent television program might constitute an experimental treatment with part of the sample being exposed to the program while another part is not exposed to it). Haskins (1968) contends that a field study is a more appropriate research design for mass communication research than the lab experiment. The field study provides a means of analysis within a natural setting with normal media distribution. While most lab experiments involve forced exposure to an isolated media message, the field study allows for a longitudinal investigation of mass communication exposure or habitual response patterns to mass communication. The investigation of hypotheses was enhanced by the conceptual and interpretive sophistication obtained by the utilization of the canonical model. While canonical

37 38 correlation will be discussed later in the chapter, a mention of its basic design is appropriate. This procedure relates two intuitively distinct sets of variables, obtained from the same individual, against each other. Thus, exploring the relationship between mass media consumption on one hand, and personality on the other, the essential question was, "What sort of mass media consumption tends to be associated with what sort of personality profile?" Canonical analysis helped to answer this question by determining the linear combinations of personality vari­ ables that were most highly correlated with the linear combinations of media consumption variables.

DATA COLLECTION IN GENERAL

Data was collected in two waves. The initial interview was conducted by telephone. Media consumption variables and demographic variables were collected at that time. The questionnaire, which may be found in Appendix A, was designed to be administered in 10-15 minutes. Due to the complexity of the response required by the Mach V Attitude Inventory, the second wave of data collection was self-administered. The second questionnaire, which may be found in Appendix B, contained the personality scales. This instrument took approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. The self-administered portion of the questionnaire was delivered to the subjects and returned by mail. 39

THE SAMPLE

The survey area consisted of Toledo, Ohio and the surrounding communities of Holland, Oregon, Perrysburg, Sylvania, Walbridge, Maumee, Ottawa Hills, Rossford, Trilby, and Whitehouse. The population from which the sample was drawn was composed of all telephone households in the above communities. After a review of telephone randomization techniques (Cooper, 1964; Fletcher and Thompson, 1974; and Leuthold and Scheele, 1971)» the researcher concluded that the randomization technique should include every residential telephone household in the population. Since randomization from the telephone directory would not meet this requirement (many phone numbers are not listed) a new selection technique was devised. Telephone household randomization was accomplished via a technique suggested by Cooper (1964). The three digit prefixes employed in the Toledo area were obtained from the Toledo phone directory. These prefixes were randomly utilized with four digits selected from a table of random numbers. It should be noted that Cooper suggests that the fourth digit numbers should be selected with each prefix and only the last three digits would then be generated totally at random. 40

This method, could, not be utilized because the fourth digit numbers could not be obtained from the phone company. As a result, a large percentage of attempted calls were connected with commericial numbers or were disconnected, non-working numbers. Once a telephone household was reached, the respondent was qualified for participation in the study if he/she was eighteen years of age or older. Thus the sampling unit was all respondents over eighteen years of age. The randomization procedure was employed to acquire an adult sample that was heterogenous with respect to the demographic variables included in the analysis. A presentation of the demographic breakdowns of the sample (including age, socioeconomic status, education, and sex) is presented in Appendix G.

INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES AND PROBLEMS

Data collection was Initiated on March 22, 1975 and was expected to be completed in a six week period. However, during the first week of phone interviews, a serious logistical problem forced an extention of the schedule. The phone interviews were planned to be originated from Bowling Green State University and connected with Toledo via a micro-wave telephone link. A few days 41 after the calls were initiated, the micro-wave link was disconnected, thus making the Bowling Green State University originated interviews long distance toll calls. Therefore, it was necessary to move the source of the phone interviews to Toledo and extend the schedule. The shift of the inter­ view source also presented a logistical problem for the interviewers and it was necessary to acquire additional interviewers living in Toledo. As a result the telephone Interviews were not completed until May JO, 1975« A total of twenty interviewers worked on the study. Of these, ten were graduate or undergraduate students at Bowling Green and two of the ten were females. The other interviewers were high school seniors from Toledo, nine of the ten were female. This researcher reviewed the interviewing instructions with each of the interviewers personally. In addition, each interviewer had a written interviewing schedule which could be used as a resource for instructions. The telephone calls were conducted during the hours of 6:00 PM through 8:30 PM on weekdays and 11:00 AM through 3:00 PM on Saturdays. Each interviewer was given a list of randomly generated telephone numbers. For each three digit prefix, a "first choice" and alternate number was listed. Interviewers were instructed to dial each "first choice" number. If the number was a commercial or disconnected phone, it was indicated on the list and the 42 alternate number was dialed. If no answer was obtained, then "no answer" was indicated and the number was dialed at another time. If a number was dialed three times without an answer, it was dropped from the study and the alternate number was used. In all, 1,923 or 68 per cent of the numbers were commercial, disconnected, or "no answers," and 905 or 32 per cent were connected to a respondent in a residential household. When interviewers were connected with a respondent, they introduced themselves and then explained that the research project was being conducted in affliation with Bowling Green State University. They asked the respondents if they would participate in a survey of television viewing behavior. Five hundred twenty-five or 58 per cent of the contacted respondents agreed to participate in the first wave of the survey. After the media consumption variables and demographic variables were collected, the interviewers explained that a second part of the survey included questions concerning social attitudes and that in order to complete the survey a questionnaire would be delivered to their home. It was also explained that this questionnaire could be returned by a pre-paid envelope that was included. The second wave questionnaires were delivered to each respondent’s home by one of two interviewers who briefly Introduced himself and referred the respondent to a letter of introduction also included (the letter may be 43 found, in Appendix C). The questionnaires were delivered anywhere from a few days to a few weeks after the initial contact with the respondent depending on the location of his home. Due to a low response with respect to the second wave, it was necessary to call back several of the respondents A major reason for not returning the second wave questionnaire was indicated as the difficulty of the Mach V Attitude Inventory. Second wave returns were accepted until June 30, 1975 and only 124 total questionnaires were received.

VARIABLES AND CODING

The study involved the data collection and coding of a number of variables. Those variables are listed and discussed below:

Mach V Attitude Inventory (Christie and Gels, 1970) The Mach V test was preceded by four other tests of Machiavellianism. It was designed to measure a person’s general strategy for dealing with people, especially an orientation toward manipulation. (The Mach V test is the first test Included in Appendix B). While Robinson and Shaver (1973) report a high reliability with the twenty-item Likert type Mach IV version, Budner (1962) reported high correlations between the Mach IV test and Edward’s (1957) Social Desirability (SD) Scale. The correlations were -.35 for college men and 44 -.75 for college women. The forced choice Mach V test was constructed to eliminate a social desirability response tendency. The reliability of the Mach V test in most samples is .60 (lower than the Mach IV version). However, Robinson and Shaver (1973) Indicate that the Mach V test does not correlate with social desirability scales. While the Mach IV test is shorter and more easily administered, the Mach V test was selected due to its low correlation with social desirability scales. Each three statement forced choice item of the Mach V test was scored from one to seven and a constant of twenty was added to the accumulative score. Therefore, the range of potential scores was from 40 to l60 (see Appendix C). The Mach V tests were hand tabulated and each respondent’s total score was coded.

Anomla Scale (Srole, 1956) Srole (1956) operationally defined anomia as an individual’s generalized, pervasive sense of social malintegratlon or "self-to-other alienation.” The original scale consisted of five statements which tap five components of this unidimensional construct. The original scales focused on the following concepts: (1) the individual’s sense that community leaders were detached from and indifferent to his needs, (2) the individual’s perception of the social order as essentially fickle and unpredictable, ^5 (3) the individual’s view beyond abdication of future life goals, that he and people like him are retrogressing, (4) the individual’s deflation or loss of internalized social norms and values, reflected in extreme form, in his sense of meaninglessness of life itself, and (5) the Individual’s perception that his framework of immediate personal relation­ ships, the very rock of his social existence, was no longer predictive or supportive (Srole, 1956, pp. 712 and 713)» The reliability of this Guttman-type scale was initially supported by a latent structure analysis conducted by Rossi and Ballyn {cited in Srole, 1956). More recently, Struening and Richardson (1965) submitted several measures of alienation, anomia, and authoritarianism to factor analysis. Statements from the Srole scale all loaded in the same factor; which the authors named "alienation via rejection." The validity of the scale is widely recognized. However, one strong criticism has been made. Lenski and Legget (i960) contend that the present form of the scale is highly susceptible to agreement response set. The present form of the Anomia Scale consists of nine rather than five statements (the Anomia Scale is the second test included in Appendix B). A score of one is given for agreement with each statement. Therefore the range of the scale is from zero to nine (with a high score indicating alienation). The scores were tabulated by hand and each respondent’s summed score was coded. 46 Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) The Rosenberg scale was designed to measure one dimension of self-esteem. This ten-item scale, measuring the self-acceptance dimension, can be self-administered in less than five minutes. Robinson and Shaver (1973) report a Guttman-scale reproductability coefficient of .92. The scale’s reliability is further supported by Silber and Tippett (1965) who found a test-retest correlation of .85. Silber and Tippett also found correlations of .56 and .83 between the Rosenberg scale and clinical assessments of self-esteem. However, Nunally (1967) criticizes the Guttman-scale contending that the small number of items and forced rectangular distribution of items produces only gross and ordinal distinctions among people. For scoring the scale, items 1, 2, and 3 are grouped, items 4 and 5 are grouped, items 9 and 10 are grouped, and items 6, 7, and 8 are scored as single scales (the Self- Esteem Scale is the third test included in Appendix B). Therefore, the range of the scale is from zero to six, with a high score indicating high self-esteem. The scores were tabulated by hand and each respondent’s summed score was coded.

Age Age was broken down into six categories and coded $7 as follows: 1 = 18 through 29 years, 2 = JO through 39 years, 3 = 40 through 49 years, 4 = 50 through 59 years, 5 = 60 through 69 years, and 6 = 70 and older.

Socioeconomic Status (Duncan, in Oppenheim, 1965) Socioeconomic status was determined by a job ranking developed by Duncan (Oppenheim, 1965). The assigned status of the respondent’s occupation placed him in one of five groups of SES, and was therefore coded as 1 through 5« Several procedures employed in the ranking of respondents should be mentioned. A wife’s SES was determined by the occupation of her husband (whether or not she was employed). In cases where the respondent was unwilling to state his occupation, was retired (and did not state his previous occupation) or was a student, SES was approximated according to the mean ranking of SES for his respective level of education (Oppenheim, 1965)»

Level of Education Level of education was based on a six level scale and coded as follows: 1=1 through 8 years, 2=9 through 12 years, 3 = a high school degree, 4 = 13 through 16 years, 5 = a college degree, and 6 = education beyond the college degree.

Sex Because sex represented a dichotomous variable, 48 Male and. Female were coded as dummy variables. That is, male and female were coded as separate variables (Kerlinger, 1973» p. 642). Males were coded as a 10 vector and females were coded as a 01 vector. It should be noted that two respondent’s sex could not be identified by their question­ naire and were coded as 00.

Television Consumption Television consumption was measured as the average amount of television viewed per day. Responses were recorded to the nearest half hour, and a constant of one was added to the initial response in order to code the variable for the canonical analysis (i.e., a response of 2.5 hours/day was coded as 3.5).

Radio Consumption Radio consumption was measured as the average amount of radio listened to per day. Responses were recorded to the nearest half hour and a constant of one was added to the initial response for coding.

Newspaper Consumption Newpaper consumption was measured as a five level variable. Respondents indicated the frequency they read a newspaper and their responses were coded as follows: 1 = less than once a week, 2 = weekly, 3 = a couple of times a week, 4 = several times a week, and 5 = every day. 49 Book Consumption Book consumption was measured as the number of books read during the past year. Due to a number of zero responses and a few responses far above the mean response, a square root transformation was performed (Ferguson, 1971» p. 220). The coding was accomplished by adding a constant of one to each initial response and taking the square root of that number.

Magazine Consumption Magazine consumption was measured as the number of magazines read regularly that the respondent could name. The variable was coded by adding a constant of one to the number mentioned.

Television Program Consumption The initial scales employed to extract patterns of television program exposure consisted of 55 programs aired during the survey. Each respondent identified the number of times he viewed each of the programs during the preceding month. Each initial response could range from 0 to 4. A constant of one was added to each response. Due to the small sample size (124) it was necessary to reduce the number of television programs to be included in the analyses. Programs were retained for the study, based on their Nielsen ranking for the 1974-75 season (Variety, May 14, 1975). Programs with a rating of twenty 50 or higher were retained. Twenty eight programs were retained for the study (see Table I). Three programs with ratings higher than twenty (Swat, Paul Sand, and Adams of Eagle Lake) were not included in the original scales because they were not aired when the survey was initiated.

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE

The factor analytic technique was employed to accomplish two objectives: (l) to identify the structure or pattern of television program viewing, and (2) to reduce the array of programs to a few linear composites (factor scores) for further canonical analyses. The principle axis factor analytic model was selected. One rationale for the reduction of the programs (variables) included in the analysis was based on the sample size requirements of factor analysis. The criterion for determining the sample size—variable ratio in this study was based onCattell’s (1966) minimum criterion of 100 subjects plus 1 subject per variable. It should be noted that this study did not meet that requirement (124 subjects and 28 variables). However, this researcher believes that the sample size was large enough to generate a representa­ tive indication of patterns of television program exposure. The eigenvalue cut-off of 1.0 criteria was employed to determine the number of factors extracted in the analysis. This criteria has been widely employed in factor TABLE I 1974-75 TELEVISION PROGRAMS INCORPORATED IN THE ANALYSES

TV Program Schedule Network Type Nielsen Rating

Cher Sun 7:30(PM) CBS GV 21.3 World of Disney Sun 7:30 NBC U 22.2 NBC Mystery Movie Sun 8:30 NBC MD 21.5 Kojak Sun 8:30 CBS MD 23-5 Manni x Sun 9:30 CBS MD 21.7 Gunsmoke Mon 8:00 CBS EW 20.7 The Rookies Mon 8 :00 ABC MD 21.5 Maude Mon 9:00 CBS CS 24.9

Rhoda Mon 9î3O CBS CS 25.9 Medical Center Mon 10:00 CBS GD 20.7 Good Times Tues 8:00 CBS CS 25.6 Mash Tues 8:30 CBS CS 25.9 Vn Hawaii Five-0 Tues 9:00 CBS MD 24.6 H* TABLE I (continued)

TV Program Schedule Network Type Nielsen Rating

Tony Orlando and Dawn Wed 8:00(PM) CBS GV 20.3 Little House on the Prairie Wed 8:00 NBC GD.EW 23.1 Cannon Wed 9 J00 CBS MD 21.5 The Waltons Thur 8:00 CBS GD 25.7 Streets of San Francisco Thur 9 s 00 ABC MD 21.3 Sanford and Son Fri 8:00 NBC CS 29.8 Chico and the Man Fri 8:30 NBC CS 28.6 The Rockford Files Fri 9:00 NBC MD 23.8 Police Woman Fri 10:00 NBC MD 22.7 Emergency Sat 8:00 NBC BD 20.2 All in the Family Sat 8:00 CBS CS 30.2 The Jeffersons Sat 8:30 CBS CS 27.6 Mary Tyler Moore Sat 9:00 CBS CS 24.0 kA Bob Newhart Sat 9:30 CBS CS 22.5 ro TABLE I (continued)

TV Program Schedule Network Type Nielsen Rating

Carol Burnett Sat 10:00(PM) CBS CV 20.5

♦Program Type categories obtained from Neilson indicators in Lichty and Ripley (1969, p. V-206) CS = Situation comedy CV = Comedy variety EW sb Western drama GD = General drama GV = General variety MD ss Mystery drama U = Unclassified

<0 54 analytic studies, and Tucker and Chase (1975) have indicated that it has been a standard procedure in the principle axis model. The factors were orthogonally rotated to simple structure by the Kaiser’s normal varimax criterion. From an analytic point of view, the weight of scholarly opinions favors this procedure. Variables were identified as contributing to a pattern of television program viewing if they produced a high and pure correlation in one factor. A high correla­ tion was operationalized as above .40 due to the small sample size (Gorsuch, 1974). A pure loading was operation­ alized by the requirement that the variable loadings on the second factor could not exceed 50 psr cent of its maximum loading. When a variable did not meet this criteria, it was interpreted as a complex variable, not contributing to defining an Independent pattern of television exposure. The factor analysis was run on the BMDX72 computer program (Dixon, 1970). The decision to utilize this program was based on the program’s option of printing out factor scores from the factor analysis. Factor scores are composite variables computed by linearly combining the raw scores (often stan­ dardized) on one or more factors. Factor score algorithms are referred to as data-reduction techniques since the number of such scores is typically fewer than the number of original variables (Tucker and Chase, 1975» p. 15). Each responsent was assigned a factor score for each factor (or pattern of television exposure), his 55 individual pattern of television exposure had been reduced to several composite scores. Each of these scores repre­ sented his association with a pattern of television viewing defined by a factor. Thus, the factor scores were employed in subsequent canonical analyses.

CANONICAL CORRELATION

Although canonical correlation was developed by Hotelling during the 30’s (1935» 1936). this technique has only recently received increased attention among behavorial researchers. It was designed to measure the interrelated­ ness of two batteries of variables obtained from the same sample of subjects (Cooley and Lohnes, 1971). The canonical model is analogous to the factor model. It uses the same model to display the structure of relationships across two batteries of measurement that the factor model uses to display the structure of relationships existing within a battery. There are three basic objectives of canonical analysis : (1) To determine vectors of weights for each set (battery) of variables such that linear com­ binations of the respective variables are maximally correlated. This goal implies optimal prediction of linear combinations of variables (variates) from one vector, given variable values in the other vector. (2) To determiae whether two sets (batteries) of variables are statistically independent of one another in a linear sense, or 56 conversely, to determine the magnitude of the relationships between the two sets. (3) To examine the nature of any relationships between the sets (batteries) of variables, generally by measuring the relative con­ tribution of each variable to the canonical relationships obtained (Alpert and Peterson, 1972, p. 187).

Basic Overview of Computational Procedures The interested reader may consult Tatsouka (1971) or Cooley and Lohnes (1971) for a detailed description of the computational algorithm. The canonical model pits two batteries of variables against each other. Tucker (1975) has outlined the procedures for data analysts in the communications area. Tie first step is to compute a Pearson Product-Moment correlation. Next, a supermatrix is constructed (R), composed of four quadrants. Rxx contains the intercorrelations among the first battery of variables. Ryy contains the intercorrelations among the second battery of variables. Rxy„„ and Ry,rxv are composed of the intercorrela- tions between the elements of the two batteries. From this matrix, a basic canonical relationship matrix is formed. From the relationship matrix, eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors are extracted from each battery. Each battery’s respective eigenvectors are normalized to unity. These normalized eigenvectors are known as beta weights. A final procedure involved with the eigenvector is the computation of the canonical component loadings. 57 The canonical components are a correlation between the canonical variate (will be defined in next paragraph) and the beta weights for each battery. The basic relationship statistic between the two batteries is the canonical correlation (Rc). Rc is an ordinary correlation between the respective composite canonical variates. The canonical variate for each battery is obtained by multiplying each subject’s raw scores by the beta weights with in the battery and summing the scores. After the first canonical root has been extracted, subsequent roots are extracted. The number of roots extracted are equal to the number of variables in the smaller of the two batteries. Each of the roots should be uncorrelated (orthogonal) and account for a smaller per­ centage of the covariation than each root preceding it.

The Interpretation of Canonical Correlation The most widely used test of significance of Rc, the maximum correlation between linear composites of batteries x and y, is Bartlett’s chi-square approximation to the distribution of Wilk’s lamlda (1941 and 1947). By squaring Rc (Rc )» an estimation of the shared variance between the two batteries is obtained. This procedure is analogous to squaring the multiple correlation coefficient in regression in order to measure the amount of variation in the dependent 58 variable that is associated with the independent variables. Because the canonical relationship between the batteries is invariably statistically overstated (Rc^). Therefore

a canonical correlation of .30 or less is often interpreted as trival (Cooley and Lohnes, p. 176). A very large canonical correlation can result from a large zero-order correlation between one variable in each battery in which case the remaining variables may provide little to the canonical structure. Steward and Love (1968) have developed a redundancy coefficient to correct the inherent overstatement of R_.. The redundancy coefficient (Rx) is the proportion of variance extracted by the battery (VC), obtained by summing the squared canonical components within the battery and dividing by the number of variables p in the battery) multiplied by Rc . Redundancy is computed for each battery given the other. Stewart and Love (1968) suggest that a 5 per cent R is the minimum requirement for the interpreation of a battery given the other. A final step in interpreting the analysis involves the examination of the correlations of the variables within and between the batteries. One school of thought, Darling­ ton (1973) cites Dunteman and Bailey; Ohnmacht and Olson; Thorndike, Weiss, and Davis; and Vestre and Lorei, has used beta weights to determine the contribution of the Individual variables to the canonical relationship. Another school, Darlington cites Porebski—uses the canonical components 59 to interpret individual variable contributions. Darlington (1973, P* 443) stresses that the standard errors of the weights are often much higher than the standard errors of the components. Therefore, when sample sizes are small or medium, any large divergence between the relative sizes of the weights and components throw suspicion on the weights; in such a case the researcher should probably Interpret the components. Cooley and Lohnes (1971) contend that while the canonical model may appear to be complicated, it is the simplest analytic model that can express the relationship between two batteries of measurement and do justice to scientific generalization.

Battery Composition and Canonical Analyses The canonical analyses were computed utilizing the Multivariance Fortran program (Finn, 1972). Four separate canonical correlations were run. Each analysis was related to a hypothesis stated in Chapter I. The variables Incorporated into the two batteries have been discussed in this chapter. Tables II - V illustrate the variable composition of each of the batteries for each analysis. 60

TABLE II SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS I: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

BATTERY X 1. Television Consumption 2. Radio Consumption

Mass Media Consumption: 3- Newspaper Consumption 4. Book Consumption 5. Magazine Consumption

BATTERY Y 1. Mach V Personality Profile: 2. Anomia 3. Self-Esteem 61

TABLE III SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS II: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA, AND THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

BATTERY X 1. Television Consumption 2. Radio Consumption Mass Media Consumption: 3» Newspaper Consumption 4. Book Consumption

5. Magazine Consumption

BATTERY Y 1. Mach V 2. Anomia Personality + Demographic 3- Self-Esteem Profile : 4. Age 5. Socioeconomic Status 6. Level of Education 7. Male 8. Female 62

TABLE IV SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OP ANALYSIS III: PATTERNS OP TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

BATTERY X 1. Television Factor I# 2. Television Factor II Patterns of Television .« Program : Exposure • • n. Television Factor n BATTERY Y 1. Mach V Personality Profile: 2. Anomia

3» Self-Esteem

-Prior to the factor analysis of "Exposure to Television Programs," the exact number of factors to be extracted, and. therefore the number of variables in Battery X and the total number of variables in the analysis was not known. 63

TABLE V

SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS IV: PATTERNS OF

TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND, THE PERSONALITY

AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

BATTERY X

1. Television Factor I

2. Television Factor II

• Patterns of Television Program Exposure: •

•

n. Television Factor n

BATTERY Y

1. Mach V

2. Anomia

3. Self-Esteem

Personality + Demographic 4. Age Profile: 5« Socioeconomic Status

6. Level of Education

7. Male

8. Female Chapter III

RESULTS

The purposes of this study were stated in four exploratory hypotheses. The results of the analyses are tabled according to the procedures for Interpreting canonical correlation established in Chapter II. For every significant canonical analysis, the reader will find three tables: (1) the mean and standard deviation for each variable, (2) the canonical structure for each battery of variables; presenting the canonical component loadings, beta weights, and significance level for each root, and (3) a components of redundancy table; indicating the canonical correlation (Rc), the canonical correlation squared (Rc ), the amount of variance accounted for by each battery of variables (VC), and the redundancy index for each root (R). For each non-significant canonical 2 analysis, the third table was omitted and Rc and Rc was presented In the second table. In order to obtain "patterns of television exposure" for each subject, a principal axis factor analysis was performed. Tables presenting: (1) the means and standard deviations of the television program variables, and (2) the television program exposure factor structure precede the canonical analyses. In these analyses, the media 64 65 consumption batteries were composed of factor scores indicating each subject's patterned television exposure.

ANALYSIS I: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

The first canonical analysis explored the relation­ ship between the amount of mass media consumed and personality. Battery X was composed of variables indicating the respondent’s consumption of: (1) television (TV), (2) radio (R), (3) newspapers (N), (4) books (B), and (5) magazines (M). Battery Y was composed of variables indicating the respondent's personality with respect to: (l) the Mach V (MV), (2) Anomia (AL), and (3) Self-Esteem (SE). Table VI presents the weighted means and standard deviations for these variables. Respondents were found to view an average of 3*3 hours of television a day (this mean, as well as the other means reported in the text of this chapter, is unweighted) and listened to radio an average of 3*2 hours a day. The mean response for news­ paper readership (4.25) indicates that most of the sample read the newspaper every day. They also read an average of 12.3 books a year and read 2.3 magazines regularly. Further, respondents were found to be average (100 is the test mean) with respect to Machiavellianism, while relatively low in alienation (on a scale from 1 to 10), and high in 66

TABLE VI MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS I: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

TV 4.3226* 2.2589 Radio 4.2460* 2.7114 Newspaper 4.2500 1.4574 Books 3.6413** 2.6735 Magazine 3.3145* I.7454 Mach V 99.1855 8.1374 Anomla 3.3790* I.8328 Self-Esteem 5.5968* 1.4478

♦Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score. **Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score and then square root transformation was perform­ ed. 6? self-esteem (on a scale from 1 to 7). Table VII presents the canonical component loading and beta weight for each variable, and the canonical correlation and canonical correlation squared for each root. All three roots were found to be non-significant and are therefore not interpretable.

ANALYSIS II: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA AND, THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

The second canonical analysis explored the relation ship between the amount of mass media consumed, and personality and demographics. Battery X was composed of the five indices of mass media consumption utilized in the preceding analysis. Battery Y incorporated the three measures of personality from the preceding analysis and demographic variables indicating: (4) age (A), (5) socio­ economic status (SES), (6) education (ED), and sex, which was identified as (7) Male (MN), and (8) Female (F). Table VIII presents the weighted mean and standard deviation for each of the variables in the analysis. Since the media consumption battery and the three indices of personality were the same as those utilized in the pre­ ceding analysis, respondents displayed the same averages with respect to those variables. The average respondent was 36 years of age (unweighted), slightly below the mid point (2.5 vs. 3.0) with respect to the socioeconomic scale, and possessed a high school degree. 68

TABLE VII STRUCTURE FOR ANALYSIS I: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF GROSS CONSUMPTION OF THE MASS MEDIA (BATTERY X) AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE (BATTERY Y)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3

BATTERY X TV .2485 ( .1562) * .3107 ( .4133) -.4610 (-.4882) R .4191 ( .4340) .0652 (-.0156) -.1688 (-.2035) N -.5049 (- .6001) .3670 ( .1885) .5836 ( .4874) B -.6682 (- .7304) -.0556 (-.1350) -.6809 (-.6687) M -.1010 ( .1167) .9034 ( .8810) -.0156 (-.0579)

BATTERY Y MV .3507 ( .0534) • 5583 (.6351) .7518 ( .8335) AL .9974 ( .9679) . 0094 (.0400) -.0711 (-.4812) SE -.3116 (- .0508) .7653 (.8428) -.5632 (-.6022)

♦Beta weights are in parentheses following the canonical components Note: Root 1, X^ « 22.56. df « 5. P>.05. Rc=.3636, R ^=.1322 Root 2, X2 « 5.76, df = 8, p>.05. Rc=.1756. Rc<=.0308 Root 3, X2 s 2.04, df « 3, p>.05. RC=.13O8, Rc =.0171 TABLE VIII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS II: GROSS CONSUMPTION OF MASS MEDIA, AND THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Variables Mean Standard Deviation

TV 4,3226* 2.2589 Radio 4.2460* 2.7114 Newspapers 4.2500 1.4574

Books 3.6413** 2.6735 Magazines 3.3145* 1.7454 Mach V 99.1855 8.1374 Anomia 3.3790* 1.8328 Self-Esteem 5.5968* 1.4478 Age 2.5726 1.648? Socioeconomic Status 2.5161 1.2130 Education 3.5484 1.1215 Male 0.3790 0.4871 Female 0.5968 0.4925

♦Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score. ♦♦Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score and then square root transformation was perform­ ed. 70 Table IX presents the canonical component loading and beta weight for each variable, and the significance level of each root. The first root was significant at the p<.01 level, while the remaining four roots were found to be non-significant. As Table X indicates, the canonical correlation of the first root (.53) was large enough to interpret. The redundancy index (Table X) for Battery X given Battery Y was 6.5 per cent and 5*6 percent for X given Y. Since this meets Stewart and Love’s criteria, each battery could be interpreted given the other battery. In Battery X, a negative correlation was found to exist between exposure to television and the reading of books and magazines. In Battery Y, a negative correlation was found between alienation (anomia), and socioeconomic status and education. The between battery comparison indicates a positive correlation between exposure to television and anomia, and a negative correlation between television exposure and socioeconomic status and education. There was a negative correlation between book and magazine consumption and anomia and a positive correlation between book and magazine con­ sumption, socioeconomic status and education.

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE

In order to obtain patterns of television program exposure existing in the sample, an orthogonally rotated principal axis factor analysis was performed. The 28 top TABLE IX STRUCTURE FOR ANALYSIS II: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF GROSS CONSUMPTION OF THE MASS MEDIA (BATTERY X) AND THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (BATTERY Y)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3 Root 4 Root 5

BATTERY X TV .4694( .3681)* •5263( .5987) -.4l45(-.3640) .6058( .6701) -.2980(-.2053) R • 327K .3940) .4298( .4534) .3409( .2746) -.246?(-.2696) •7560( .7393) N -•3216(- .2761) -315K- .2396) .6892( .5241) •57?5( .5421) .6360( .6224) B -.6881(- .6298) .6198( .6283) -.5188(-.5436) -.2705(-.2164) — 0475( .0128) M -.504l(- .3495) .1710( .1469) •3934( .2854) •3911( .3987) •12l4(-.1260)

BATTERY Y MV .1683( .1073) -.2006(-.1952) •5149( .4939) .3906( .6460) •3212( .3919) AL •5808( .3105) .O551( .1918) .1114( .0010) -.2128(-.284l) -.1944(-.3879) SS -.2463C-.0879) .2900( .3150) -.O736(-.OO3O) .5000( .4736) -.04l9(-.0106) A .0245(-.0204) -.3327(-.4l00) .1566( .2145) •5235( .3642) -.5184(-.4425) TABLE IX (continued)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3 Root 4 Root 5

BATTERY Y (continued) sss -.6380(-.2123) -.3218(-.2445) .2746( .1666) .1487( .3394) -.2277(-.4551) ED -.8315(—?005) -.2033 (—311) .2680( .1188) -.2657(—5248) .0498( .0791) MN .2191( .4720) -.8010(-.7621) .5697 ( — 48 38) -.2569(-.5843) .1848(-2.0017) F -.1681( .2431) •7834( .0345) -.6483(-l.0686) .1869(-.4295) -.3663(-2.2696)

♦Beta weights are In parentheses following the canonical components. Note» Boot 1, X2 = 65.01. df = 40, p<.01, Rc=.5309, Rc2=.28l8 Root 2, X2= 26.61, df = 28, p>.05, Rc=.3274, R2=.1O72- Root 3. X2s = 13.46, df = 18, p>.05, Rc=.2469, R2=.06l0 Root 4, X~ = 6.16, df = 10, p>.05, Rc=.2001, R ~=.0400 Root 5. X2= 1.42, df = 4, p>.05, RC=.11O4, RC2=.O122

-o w 73

TABLE X COMPONENTS FOR REDUNDANCY FOR ANALYSIS II: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF GROSS CONSUMPTION OF THE MASS MEDIA, AND THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Root Rc Rc2 Vc R

BATTERY X 1 .5309 .2818 .2317 .0653 2 .3274 .1072 .1949 .0209 3 .2469 .0610 .2379 .0145 4 .2001 .0400 .1308 .0052 5 .1104 .0122 .2164 .0026 Total Variance Extracted from Battery X = 1. R, Total Redundancy for Battery X Given Battery Y = 10.85$

BATTERY Y 1 .5309 .2818 .2002 .0564 2 .3274 .1072 .2048 .0220 3 .2469 .0610 .1499 .0091 4 .2001 .0400 .1144 .0046 5 .1104 .0122 .0793 .0010 Total Variance Extracted from Battery Y = .75$ R, Total Redundancy for Battery Y Given Battery X = 9*31$ 74 rated television programs (Nielsen), aired during the survey were included in the factor analysis. Each respondent indicated the number of times he viewed the program during the preceding month (0-4 times). Table XI presents the means and standard deviations for the 28 programs (unweighted means can be obtained by subtracting one from each mean listed In the table). Table XII presents the four factor solution of the analysis; indicating patterned viewing among the 28 programs The four factors accounted for 42 per cent of the total variance in program viewing of the sample. Of the 28 pro­ grams, 16 produced high and pure loadings on one of the four factors. Factor I accounted for 23 per cent of the total variance existing in the samples’ selection from the 28 programs and 55 per cent of the common variance existing in the four factor solution. The four programs with high and pure loadings in this factor included: Hawaii Five-0, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco, and Sanford and Son. Factor II accounted for 9 per cent of the total variance and 21 per cent of the common variance. The six programs with high and pure loadings in this factor included: Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett. Factor III accounted for 5 per cent of the total variance and 12 per cent of the common variance. Three programs had high and pure negative loadings on this factor (negative loadings were Interpreted as patterned viewing). 75

TABLE XI MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES FOR FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Cher 2.3306* 1.4965 World of Disney 1.9032 1.4450 NBC Mystery Movie 2.7096 1.4582 Kojak 2.4919 1.6941 Mannix 2.3064 1.4826 Gunsmoke 1.4838 1.1651 The Rookies 2.0806 1.5174 Maude 1.8871 1.3981 Rhoda 1.9193 1.4061 Medical Center 2.0080 1.5850 Good Times 2.1451 1.5286 Mash 2.4919 1.6305 Hawaii Flve-0 1.9838 1.4084 Tony Orlando and Dawn 2.0161 1.3909 Little House on the Prairie 2.0161 1.48?0 Cannon 2.0726 1.4323 Ihe Waltons 2.1935 1.5653 76

TABLE XI (continued)

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Streets of San Francisco 2.1128 1.5207 Sanford and Son 1.5322 1.1148 Chico and Hie Man 2.2338 1.5830 The Rockford Files 2.2903 1.5606 Police Woman 2.1774 1.5198 Emergency 2.2016 1.5926 All in the Family 1.3226 0.9418 The Jeffersons 2.1693 1.5810 Mary Tyler Moore 2.0403 1.0699 Bob Newhart 1.8387 0.9991 Carol Burnett 2.2016 1.5087

*A11 program means are weighted, a constant of one was added to all scores. TABLE XII ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE

Program Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 h2

Cher .01?08 .61604* .02642 .15622 .40490 World, of Disney .15281 -.02547 -.38613 .13998 .19269 NBC Mystery Movie •37790 .22582 -.31501 .18026 .32553 Kojak .41482 .11492 -.27371 .37935 .40411 Mannix .38705 .07834 -.25402 .38480 .36853 Gunsmoke .20679 .18846 -.26517 .10392 .15940 The Rookies .14898 .04592 -.25986 .43557 .28150 Maude .09555 .69004* -.07722 .04292 .49310 Rhoda .07649 .83843* .04730 .04015 .71266 Medical Center -.03867 .51782* -.25018 .22494 .38282 Good Times .15669 .48139* -.23262 .07947 .31672 Mash .41261 .46998 -.04492 -.07843 .39930 Hawaii Flve-O .71010* .23058 -.16381 .02618 .58493 Tony Orlando and Dawn .15172 .24538 .00679 .34669 .20347 TABLE XII (continued)

Program Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 h2

Little House on the Prairie .13399 .18753 -.67780* .00930 .51262 Cannon .75100* .19241 -.11749 .15448 .63869 The Waltons .02016 .02228 -.58722* .18014 .37818 Streets of San Francisco .63990* .00188 -.21132 .20998 - .49822 Sanford and Son .70112* -.06218 .03559 .29155 .58170 Chico and the Man .13689 .39991 -.51679 -.06743 .45029 The Rockford Files .15126 .50954 -.48562 -.11941 .53259 Police Woman .57175 .16283 -.36566 .09005 .49523 Emergency .27824 .31435 -.42184- ,21874 .40204 All in the Family .20074 -.12230 .05941 .50232* .31111 •Die Jeffersons .15180 -.21759 — 58159* .27093 .48204 Mary Tyler Moore .04461 .12072 -.20991 .70294* .55475 Bob Newhart .10364 .13332 -.17215 .68837* .53200 ^3 00 TABLE XII (continued)

Program Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 h2

Carol Burnett .09241 .48581* -.02690 -.00355 .24529

Total Variation (%Vfc) 23# 9# 5# 5# 42# Common Variation (#VC) 55# 21# 12# 12# 100# Eigenvalue 6.57 2.48 1.48 1.30

*A high pure loading variable.

-o \o 80 The programs defining this factor were: Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons. Factor IV accounted for 5 per cent of the total variance and 12 per cent of the common variance. This factor was composed of three programs with high and pure loadings : All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and Bob Newhart. The factor analysis also allowed the researcher to assign four factor scores (see Appendix F) that indicated each respondent’s particular contribution to defining each of the factors. These factor scores were input in the subsequent canonical analyses.

ANALYSIS III: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

The third canonical analysis explored the relation­ ship between patterns of television program exposure and personality. Battery X was composed of factor scores indicating each respondent’s contribution to the patterns of television exposure identified as: (1) Factor I (TVF1), (2) Factor II (TVF2), (3) Factor III (TVF3), and (4) Factor IV (TTVF4). Battery Y was composed of the three personality variables employed in the previous canonical analyses: (1) Mach V (MV), (2) Anomia (AL), and (3) Self-Esteem (ES). Table XIII presents the weighted mean and standard 81

TABLE XIII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS III: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

TV Factor 1 0.0001 0.9133 TV Factor 2 0.0024 0.9358 TV Factor 3 0.0072 0.8783 TV Factor 4 0.0058 0.8724 Mach V 99.1855 8.1374 Anomia 3.3790* 1.8328 Self-Esteem 5.5968* 1.4478

*Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score. 82 deviation for each of the variables. Table XIV presents the canonical component loading and beta weight for each variable and the level of significance for each root. The first root was significant at the p<.05 level, while the remaining three roots were non-significant. As Table XV indicates, the canonical correlation of the first root (.35) is large enough to interpret. The redundancy indices for Battery X given Y and Battery Y given X were both 3 per cent; indicating that only a marginal percentage of the variation in each battery can be explained given the other battery. In Battery X, a negative correlation is apparent between exposure to the programs in Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett) and exposure to the programs in Factor III (Little House on the Pralre, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons). In Battery Y, no interpretable correlation was found between the variables. The between battery comparison indicates a positive correlation between exposure to the programs represented by Factor II and anomia. There was a negative correlation between Factor III and anomia.

ANALYSIS IV: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND, THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

The fourth canonical analysis explored the relation­ ship between patterns of television program exposure, and 83

TABLE XIV STRUCTURE FOR ANALYSIS III: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE (BATTERY X) AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE (BATTERY Y)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3

BATTERY X TVF1 -.3713 (-.2934)* .1979 (.1546) .8351 ( .8601) TVF2 -.4516 (-.4025) .4654 (.4708) -.5005 (-.5346) TVF3 .8549 ( .8138) .3851 (.4507) .0604 ( .0974) TVF4 -.1513 (-.0899) .7568 (.7621) .1191 ( .0694)

BATTERY Y MV .0334 ( .2912) .9946 ( .9677) .0400 (.0411 ) A -.8119 (-I.O379) .3750 ( .0644) .0128 (.0136) SE -.2815 (- .5244) -.1898 (-.0709) .0422 (.0501)

♦Beta weights are in parentheses following the canoni cal components Note: Root 1, X2 = 23.28. df = 12. p<.05> rc=.349O, Rc?=.1218 Root 2. XJ = 7.82. df = 6 » p>.05, Rc=.2412, Rc?=.O582 Root 3. X2 = O.69. df = 2» p>.05, Rc=.O758, r =.0058 84

TABLE XV COMPONENTS FOR REDUNDANCY FOR ANALYSIS III: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND THE PERSONALITY PROFILE

Root Rc Rc2 Vc 5

BATTERY X

1 .3490 .1218 .2739 .0333 2 .2412 .0582 .2442 .0142

3 .0758 .0058 .2414 .0014 Total Variance Extracted from Battery X = 75»95# R, Total Redundancy for Battery X Given Battery Y = 4.89#

BATTERY Y 1 .3490 .1218 .2465 .0300 2 .2412 .0582 .3886 .0226 3 .0758 .0058 .0012 .0000 Total Variance Extracted from Battery Y « 63.63# R, Total Redundancy for Battery Y Given Battery X * 5.26# 85 personality and demographics. Battery X was composed of the four factors of patterned television exposure utilized in the preceding analysis. Battery I was composed of the three personality and five demographic variables employed in Analysis II. Table XVI presents the weighted means and standard deviations for each of the variables. Table XVII presents the canonical component and beta weight for each variable and the level of significance for each battery. The first root was significant at the p<.0001 level, the second root was significant at the p<.05 level, and the remaining two roots were non-significant. As Table XVIII indicates, the canonical correlation of the first root (.52) was large enough to interpret. The redundancy index for Battery X given Battery Y was 7.1 per cent while the redundancy index for Battery Y given Battery X was 3.4 per cent. This suggests that the relationship should be interpreted in terms of Battery X given Battery Y. In Battery X no interpretable correlation is found. In Battery Y, a negative correlation is found between alienation and education. The between battery comparison Indicates a positive correlation between the programs represented in Factor IV (All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and Bob Newhart) in Battery X, and alienation. And a negative correlation between Factor IV and education in Battery Y. 86

TABLE XVI MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS IV: PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE AND, THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

TV Factor 1 0.0001 0.9133 TV Factor 2 0.0024 0.9358 TV Factor 3 0.0072 0.8783 TV Factor 4 0.0058 0.8724 Mach V 99.1855 8.1374 Anomia 3.3790* 1.8328 Self-Esteem 5.5968* 1.4478 Age 2.5726 1.6487 Socioeconomic Status 2.5161 1.2130 Education 3.5484 1.1215 Male 0.3790 0.4871 Female 0.5968 0.4925

*Indicates weighted mean, constant of one was added to each raw score. TABLE XVII STRUCTURE FOR ANALYSIS IV: CANONICAL CORRELATION OF PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE (BATTERY X) AND, THE PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (BATTERY Y)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3 Root 4

BATTERY X TVF1 <2089( .1195)* .4968( .4668) .8532( .8896) •7788( .8178) TVF2 .2930( .2687) .2124( .1627) -.0165( -.0328) -.4859( — 5076) TVF3 -.2958(-.2351) — 7835(—7639) .4628( .5201) •3O78( .3440) TVF4 •9201( .8985) -.3346(-.4033) .0301( -.0072) .1223( .0866)

BATTERY Y MV •3233( .3886) -.2477Î-.3556) .4267( .5019) .196K .3614) AL .4318( .2583) .4223( .6127) -.1056( -.2969) -3054( -.5307) SS -.0311( .2110) .2691( .2924) .0387( -.0467) ,, -.1047( -.1964) AD -•3377(-.484l) .7588( .6966) •3689( .4454) •3732( .4159) SES -.2629( .2162) -.0796( .0358) -.1463( -.3877) •O553( -.0994) TABLE XVII (continued)

Variable Root 1 Root 2 Root 3 Root 4

ED — 6876(-.84l6) —3546(-.1263) -.O321( .1019) -.1808( -.2421) MN -.2111(-.7665) -.0916(-.1471) •O535(-1.6776) .3900(-1.4772) F .1282(-.6059) .0886(—1069) -.1919(-1.8149) -.5617(-2.0103)

*Beta weights are in parentheses following the canonical components. Note: Root 1, X2 71.63, df= 32, p<.001, Rc=.5194, R2=.2698 Root 2, X2 35.00. df= 21, p<.05, Rc=.4493. R2=.2019 Root 3, X2 8.73» df= 12, p>.05, Rc=.2127, Rco=-0452 Root 4, X2 3.33, df= 5, p>.05, R^=.l68O, R^2=.0282

co 89

TABLE XVIII COMPONENTS FOR REDUNDANCY FOR ANALYSIS IV: CANONICAL

CORRELATION OF PATTERNS OF TELEVISION PROGRAM EXPOSURE (BATTERY X). AND PERSONALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (BATTERY Y)

Root Rc Rc2 Vc R

BATTERY X 1 .5194 .2698 .2659 .0717 2 .4493 .2019 .2544 .0514 3 .212? .0452 .2358 .0107 4 .1680 .0282 .2381 .0067 Total Variance Extracted from Battery X =1 R, Total Redundancy for Battery X Given Battery Y = 14.05$

BATTERY Y 1 .5194 .2698 .1270 .0343 2 .4493 .2019 .1295 .0261 3 .2127 .0452 .0492 .0022 4 .1680 .0282 .0982 .0028 Total Variance Extracted from Battery Y = 40.39$ R, Total Redundancy for Battery Y Given Battery X » 6.54$ 90 The canonical correlation of the second root (.45) is also interpretable. The redundancy index for Battery X given Battery Y was 5«1 per cent, while the redundancy index for Battery Y given Battery X was 2.6 per cent. This also suggested that the relationship should be interpretated in terms of Battery X given Battery Y. In Battery X, a negative correlation was found between Factor I (Hawaii Flve-O, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco, and Sanford and Son) and Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons). In Battery Y, a positive correlation was found between alienation and age. The between battery comparison indicated a positive correlation between exposure to the programs of Factor I in Battery X, and alienation and age in Battery Y. There is a negative correlation between the programs in Factor III and alienation and age.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

A summary of the results are presented below as they relate to each of the four hypotheses presented in Chapter I. Hypothesis I: The subtests of the Gross Consump­ tion of Mass Media battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l). Hypothesis I was rejected. No significant correla­ tion was found between the mass media consumption of 91 television, radio, newspapers, books, and magazines, and the personality indices of Machiavellianism, alienation, and self-esteem. Hypothesis II: The subtests of the Gross Consump­ tion of Mass Media battery, and the Personality and Demo­ graphic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l). Hypothesis II was accepted. One significant dimension (root) was found. The media consumption variable of television positively correlated with alienation while book consumption and magazine con­ sumption negatively correlated with alienation. Con­ versely, television consumption negatively correlated and book and magazine consumption as well as with socio­ economic status and education. The media consumption variables of radio and newspaper exposure, the personality variables of Mach- iavellinism and self-esteem, and the demographic vari­ ables of age and sex did not significantly enter into the relationship. The redundancy index for Battery X given Battery Y indicated that those who watched more tlevision and read fewer books and magazines were more likely to be alienated individuals of lower socioeconomic status with lower levels of education. The redundancy index for Battery Y given Battery X indicated that the majority 92 of the sample who were alienated, of lower socioeconomic status, and with lower level of education tended to view more television and read fewer books and magazines. Hypothesis III: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Exposure battery and the Personality Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l). Hypothesis III was accepted. One significant dimension (root) was found. Exposure to the programs in Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett) and non-exposure to the programs in Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons) were found to correlate significantly with alienation. Television exposure, Factors I and IV, and the personality variables of Machiavellianism and self-esteem did not significantly enter into the relationship. The redundancy indices for both batteries were low (below 5 per cent). Thus, exposure to Factor II and non-exposure to Factor II was considered marginally associated with alienation. Hypothesis IV: The subtests of the Patterns of Television Exposure battery, and the Personality and Demographic Profile will have at least one dimension in common (k>l). 93 Hypothesis IV was accepted.. Two significant dimensions (roots) were found. Exposure to Factor IV (All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and Bob Newhart) was found to correlate positively with alienation and negatively with education. The television exposure Factors I, II, and III, the personality variables of Machiavellianism and self-esteem, and the demographic variables of age, socioeconomic status, and sex did not significantly enter into the relationship. The redundancy index for Battery X given Battery Y Indicated that individuals who viewed Factor IV tended to be alienated and with lower levels of education. In the second dimension (root) exposure to the programs represented in Factor I (Hawaii Five-0, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco, and Sanford and Son) positively correlated with alienation and age while exposure to the programs represented in Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons and, The Jeffersons) negatively correlated with alienation and age. The television exposure Factors II and IV, the personality variables of Machiavellianism and self-esteem, and the demographic variables of socio­ economic status, education, and sex did not significantly enter into the relationship. 94 The redundancy index for Battery X given Battery Y indicated that individuals who viewed Factor I and did not view Factor III tended to be alienated and older members of the sample. Chapter IV

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the major findings of this study and the ways they relate to the communication research and theory upon which this study is predicated. In order to gain an additional perspective of the study, an assessment of the weaknesses and strengths of the research design is Included. Particular attention is given to the implications of factor analysis and canonical correlation in mass communication research. The study concludes with a presentation of several avenues of future research indicated by the results.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The four canonical correlations and the factor analysis led to the following interpretation of major findings: (1) No significant association was found between patterns of gross consumption of the mass media (television, radio, newspapers, books and magazines) and the personality profile (Machiavellianism, alienation and self-esteem). (2) A significant association was found between a pattern of high consumption of television and low consump­ tion of books and magazines among respondents high in

95 96 alienation (anomia) with lower socioeconomic status and a lower level of education than other members of the sample. (3) Forty-two per cent of the variance of the sample’s viewing of the 28 television programs was defined in the factor analysis. Furthermore, four patterns of program viewing were defined in the four orthogonal factors of clusters of television programs. (4) A significant, but marginal (based on redundancy indices below 5 per cent), association was found between patterned exposure to the programs defined in Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett), patterned non-viewing of the programs defined in Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons) and alienation (anomia). (5) Respondents whose patterned viewing was defined by the programs in Factor IV (All in the Family, Bob Newhart and Mary Tyler Moore) were found to be significantly more alienated and of a lower level of education than their counterparts who did not display patterned viewing of those programs. (6) Respondents whose patterned viewing was defined by the programs in Factor I (Hawaii Five-0, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco, and Sanford and Son) and whose patterned non-viewing was defined by the programs in Factor III (The Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons) were found to be significantly more 97 alienated and older than their counterparts who did not display that pattern of television viewing. (7) Alienation was the only personality variable that produced a significant association with mass media consumption. (8) No indication of associations between Machia­ vellianism and unique patterns of mass media consumption or patterns of television program viewing were found. (9) No indication of association between self-esteem and unique patterns of mass media consumption or patterns of television program viewing were found.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Mass Media Consumption The analysis of gross consumption of the mass media and personality failed to produce a significant association. The univariate analyses of mass media consumption and isolated measures of personality indicated a marginal correlation between alienation and television exposure (McLeod, Ward, and Tancil, 1965-1966; LoSciuto, 1971). Furthermore, LoSciuto (1971) found a negative correlation between self-esteem and television exposure. McLeod, Ward, and Tancill (1965-1966) also found a negative correlation between alienation and the consumption of books and magazines. This researcher expected the multivariate analysis—which allows each respondent’s 98 media consumption behavior to be considered as an inter­ related system—to extract the significant patterns of media consumption associated with personality which the univariate studies had been unable to isolate. However, like the previous univariate analyses, no significant relationships were uncovered when personality alone was related to the multiple measures of media consumption. When demographic variables were incorporated into the personality profile, a significant relationship was found. Those individuals who viewed more television and read fewer books and magazines tended to be more alienated and of lower socioeconomic status and education than other respondents. The high redundancy indices for both batteries (above 5 per cent) suggested that most respondents who were alienated and of lower socioeconomic status and education displayed this pattern of mass media consumption. This finding supports the research of McLoed, Ward and Tancil (1965-66) and LoSciuto (1971) with respect to alienation and education. Hazard’s findings (1965 and 1967) with respect to social isolation, socioeconomic status, and greater exposure to television were also supported. Thus, this analysis supported the majority of univariate analyses that were reviewed. However, unlike these earlier studies no significant association was found between self-esteem and a multivariate pattern of media consumption. 99 Factor Analysis of Television Program Exposure The factor analysis reduced the exposure to the 28 television programs to four factors of patterned television viewing. Perhaps the most significant finding of this descriptive analysis was that the factor structure did not demonstrate that habitual patterns of television exposure were based purely on the substantive form of the programs. As both Symthe (1954) and Klapper (i960) have suggested, the audience does seem to select programs on the basis of the content and other variables rather than simply form. Because this study did not analyze the content of these programs, no attempt was made to name the four factors extracted in the analysis; despite the fact that the majority of the programs loading in each factor are of similar form (e.g. the majority of the programs in Factor I are mystery drama; Hawaii Flve-O, Cannon, and The Streets of San Francisco, Sanford and Son is a situation comedy). Several variables that may have accounted for the factor structure were suggested by an examination of the factor analysis. For example, the majority of programs in Factor II (Maude, Bhoda, and Good Times) and all of the programs in Factor IV (All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and Bob Newhart) were situation comedies. One obvious difference between these programs is scheduling. All of the programs in Factor IV are scheduled on 100 Saturday night while the other programs are scheduled during the week. Despite the fact that these programs are of similar form, the analysis indicated that they represented two distinct patterns of viewing behavior. Another possible effect of scheduling was observed within Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett). In addition to the four situation comedies, Cher and Carol Burnett are variety programs and Medical Center is a general drama loading in this factor. While the level of comedy in the variety programs provides a rationale for those programs loading with the situation comedies in the factor, the same rationale would make the loading of Medical Center an anomally in the factor. However, Medical Center is preceded by two of the situation comedies (Maude and Rhoda) loading in the factor. Audi­ ence members who viewed the two situation comedies apparently "stay tuned" to Medical Center. Following this scheduling explanation, one might expect that Factor IV would have consisted of four situation comedies rather than three. The CBS Saturday night package consisted of All in the Family, The Jeffer­ sons, Bob Newhart, and Mary Tyler Moore. However, The Jeffersons loaded in Factor III while the other three programs loaded in Factor IV. This indicated that a selection variable other than program form and scheduling was affecting program selection. 101 Another indication of the presence of another selection variable was demonstrated in Factor I. While this factor is largely a mystery drama dimension of viewing, a situation comedy (Sanford and Son) loaded in the factor. The Jeffersons and Sanford and Son had two similar characteristics. Both are situation comedies which did not load in any of the factors composed mainly of programs with similar forms, and both programs feature characters from a minority group. However, one major difference exists between the two programs. While the main characters of Sanford and Son are blacks living in a low socioeconomic inner city environment, the main characters of The Jeffersons are blacks living in a "white” upper-middle class environment. One possible explanation for the loading of Sanford and Son in a factor composed of largely mystery dramas and The Jeffersons in a different factor of viewing may be found in the research of Wiebe (1969) and Horton and Wohl (1956). In selecting programs for the purpose of intrapersonal impulse gratification, the audience rejects programs that do not correlate with their own role patterns and self conceptions (norms and values). The fact that these programs present the behavior of minority characters may have resulted in their loading on factors that did not contain any other situation comedies. 102 Patterns of Television Program Exposure The association between patterned exposure to the programs defined in Factor II (Cher, Maude, Rhoda, Medical Center, Good Times, and Carol Burnett), patterned non­ viewing of the programs in Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, and The Jeffersons), and alienation was marginal (due to redundancy indices of below 5 per cent in both batteries). This indicated that while the canonical root may be interpreted, greater attention should be given to the canonical analysis that included demographic variables along with the personality profile. The major contrast between these two program factors is the degree of light humor. With the exception of Medical Center all of the programs in Factor II were either situation comedies or variety programs. With the exception of The Jeffersons, the programs in Factor III were general dramas focusing on a family situation. As Pearlin (1956 and 1959) has indicated, individuals with a negative view of the world surrounding them would probably prefer programs where humor was utilized as a buffer to reduce the seriousness of problems presented in the plot. When demographic variables were included with the personality profile in the canonical, two significant roots were extracted. Viewers of the programs defined in Factor IV (All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore and Bob 103 Newhart) tended, to be alienated and of lower levels of education. The redundancy index for the personality profile indicated that not all alienated respondents with low levels of education viewed the programs in the factor. In other words, with the low redundancy index of the personality profile given the television program exposure battery, no generalizations could be made concerning the television viewing habits of all alienated respondents with low levels of education. However, given the respondents who defined Factor IV, the majority of these respective viewers tended to be alienated and of low levels of educa­ tion. As previously mentioned, one important difference between these situation comedies and the situation comedies defined in Factor II (Maude, Rhoda and Good Times) is that the situation comedies in Factor IV are all scheduled on Saturday night. This scheduling difference must be considered as a possible explanation for the canonical relationship. The habitual viewing of these Saturday night programs might very well provide their audience with the illusion of intimate social Interaction suggested by Wiebe (1969). For these alienated viewers, the programs may provide a sense of participation and the illusion of face-to-face interaction without the sharing and develop­ ment of a reciprocal relationship necessary in the inter­ personal transaction. 104

Another possible explanation is found in Bogart’s (1955) investigation of comic strip readers. Similar to readers with low levels of education, alienated viewers of these programs with low levels of education might very well utilize the programs as a subject of social conversation. In an avoidance of personal commitment, the programs may provide a topic of conversation removed from controversial issues. Certainly these explanations of the relationship are intuitive, and further research is required to indicate their validity. The second significant root indicated that exposure to the programs defined in Factor I (Hawaii Five-0, Cannon, The Streets of San Francisco and Sanford and Son) and nonexposure to the programs defined in Factor III (Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons and The Jeffersons) tended to associate with alienated older members of the audience. The redundancy index indicated that not all alienated older respondents demonstrated this pattern of viewing. In other words, with the low redundancy index of the personality profile given the television exposure battery, no generalizations could be made concerning the television viewing habits of all alienated older respondents in the sample. However, given the respondents who defined 105 Factors I and III the majority of these respective viewers tended to be alienated and older. A possible explanation for this relationship is found in the research of Wiebe (1969) and Horton and Wohl (1956). The majority of the programs in Factor I are mystery dramas. These programs are based on the constant fight of "good" against "evil.” The world is depicted as violent and dangerous. Perhaps the norms and values presented in these programs are congruent with the self-conceptions of this particular audience. On the other hand, the family centered plots of The Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons may appear unrealistic with respect to their perceptions of the world. It is interesting to note that the situation comedy defined in Factor I (Sanford and Son) depicts a minority cast in a lower socioeconomic inner city environ­ ment, while the situation comedy defined in Factor III (The Jeffersons) depicts a minority cast in an upper middle class environment. Perhaps the alienated older viewers of Sanford and Son find the characters to portray their stereotypes and tend to conform to their values. In contrast, these non-viewers of The Jeffersons might find the characters in some way challenging to their stereo­ types and their values. Again, these are only intuitive explanations and further research is needed to substantiate them 106 Alienation In both the analyses of the gross consumption of mass media and patterns of television program exposure, alienation was the only personality variable that significantly associated with unique patterns of mass media exposure. This finding was supported by the previous research of Pearlin (1956 and 1959), McLeod, Ward, and Tancil (1965-1966), Hazard (1965 and 1967), and LoSciuto (1971). The Anomia Scale (Srole, 1956) was utilized in the study to tap a unidimensional measurement of aliena­ tion. With this in mind, the association of media con­ sumption with alienation is more accurately an association with "self-to-other" alienation or "alienation via rejection." The scale indicates a generalized, pervasive sense of social malintegration. The strong association found in this study indicates a need for further explora­ tion of this relationship.

Machiavelllanl sm As previously cited, the Mach V Attitude Inventory was included in the present study in an exploratory investigation of the association of a tendency toward manipulation in interpersonal relations with patterns of mass media consumption. However, in all four analyses, no significant associations were found. The reader is reminded that in interpersonal experiments where 107 differences were reported between high and low Machs, the following situational properties were present: (1) face to face interaction, (2) arousing irrelevant affect; the display of emotional states of excitement, fear, shame, anger, etc., and (3) lattitude for improvisation (Christie and Geis, 1970). These situational conditions are apparently not present in the parasocial interaction of the individual and the mass media. This is a possible explanation for the failure to find a significant associa­ tion between Machiavellianism and media exposure.

Self-Esteem Contrary to LoSciuto*s (1971) finding of a correlation between television exposure and low self­ esteem, no significant association was found between this variable and media consumption. An important finding was that those Individuals who were alienated and from lower levels of socioeconomic status and education, and who viewed more television and read less books and magazines had no significantly lower self-esteem. Similarly, the majority of the habitual patterns of television exposure were associated with alienated individuals who did not display a significantly lower self-esteem than their unallenated counterparts who did not view the patterns of programs. It should be noted that an individual’s association with a pattern 108 of television viewing would indicate selective television exposure. With respect to Wiebe’s research, it is likely that individuals select these patterns for the purpose of intrapersonal impulse gratification. It is therefore probable that these patterns did not present norms and values that might raise a question about the viewer’s self-conceptions. For many individuals, the selection of certain television programs might represent a form of Maslow’s (1969) deficiency motivation. In other words, the patterns of television viewing identified in the study might provide the viewer with a narrowed, predictable world that he can cope with. Certainly additional research is needed to substantiate this possibility.

LIMITATIONS

Survey Procedures The logistical problems encountered during the initiation- of the study forced an extension of data collection to a period of several months. While this could raise questions about the results of a study that investi­ gates exposure to specific content during a specific period of time, because this study was concerned with longitudinal media exposure this time factor did not hinder this analysis. The study dealt with "habitual” 109 consumption of the mass media. It is unlikely that these patterns changed during the course of the investigation.

Instrument The measurement of the gross consumption of mass media appeared to be accurate. For example, the average amount of television consumed per day (3*3 hours) was Identical to the mean television viewing time in LoSciuto’s (1971) national survey. A major weakness of the gross consumption of mass media battery was the measure of newspaper consumption. This scale only provided an indication that the majority of respondents read the newspaper everyday. Certainly a more discriminatory measure of readership was needed. The measure of television program exposure was based on the approximate number of times each respondent reported viewing the program during the past month. While there is much room for error in this response, it did provide an indication of the respondent’s general tendencies for viewing the programs. The only major difficulty in utilization of the scale involved data collection for exposure to television movies (this data was not included in the analyses). The major problem with the instrument was the difficulty of the response set of the Mach V Attitude Inventory. While the returned data indicated that the no sample was representative of other data collected on the Mach test (the mean of the Mach test employed in the study was 99*2 while Christie and Geis report a mean of 100) several respondents stated that the test was long and difficult to complete. From similar responses on several of the returned second wave questionnaires, it was concluded that the difficulty of the test was at least partially responsible for the high attrition rate in the second wave of the survey. While the Anomia scale (Srole, 1956) did discriminate levels of alienation existing in the sample, it defined a univeriate measure of alienation. While this was adequate for the present study, it is suggested that subsequent research should incorporate a multivariate Indicator of alienation.

Factor Analysis Two serious considerations should be given to the factor analysis employed in the study. With the relatively small sample size (124 subjects and 28 variables), the results should be considered as an indication of factors defining patterns of television program exposure. A further limitation involved the naming of the factors. In order to name the factors a common dimension underlying each factor must be interpreted by the researcher. For this reason, no attempt was made to name the four factors. Ill However, several possible explanations for the factor structure were suggested in the study. These should be recognized as largely intuitive observations of this research­ er. Certainly further research is needed to define the common elements of the programs in each factor.

Canonical Correlation The present study has demonstrated an application of canonical correlation in mass communication research. Several indications were found in the association between patterns of mass media consumption and patterns of personality. However, due to the small sample size, these findings should be regarded as only tentative indications which need to be tested in a replication of the study. The need for replication and cross validation is extremely important in canonical correlation because of its susceptibility to sample specific covariation (Tucker, 1975)«

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There is a need for replication of the present study. Perhaps the future researcher should focus his concern on either the gross consumption of mass media or patterns of television program exposure. While the suggested areas of research listed below deal specifically with television program exposure, it seems appropriate to initiate similar research across the various media or within 112 another medium.

Identifying Meaningful Patterns of Media Behavior The factor analysis did reduce the programs in the analysis to several patterns of television exposure. This procedure represents a fruitful method of identifying behavior patterns (in the audience) that are not mani­ pulated by forcing the programs into a category based purely on content.

Content Analyze Programs in Media Behavior Patterns The factor analysis and canonical correlations employed in the present study indicated that a content analysis of the programs might add a valuable additional insight to the nature of the common dimension underlying each program factor. This is not to suggest that any existing content categories are adequate. Content cate­ gories should be developed to explore those dimensions which appear to be intuitively obvious as a result of the factor analysis. The canonical correlations also suggest that the content categories might be based on the personality variables associated with particular patterns of media behavior. For example, with alienation as the salient personality variable, content categories might seek to isolate the attitudes toward society depicted in the programs of the norms and values presented. 113 Continuation of the Analysis of Media Behavior and Personality The canonical correlation model proved to be a fruitful technique to identify the association between patterned exposure to the mass media and a multi-dimensional measure of personality. It is suggested that this techni­ que be fully investigated by mass communication researchers. In particular, future researchers might replace personality variables that prove to be unrelated to media behavior with personality traits that appear to be related to other traits under examination. The potential of this technique is dependent on the determination and imagination of the researcher. Certainly this is not an area of research that can be uncovered by several studies.

Investigate the Relationship Between Program Appeals and Personality As demonstrated in the research of Monaghan, et al. (1974) several researchers have investigated the appeals existing in television programs (e.g. reality, values, complexity, and seriousness). This approach demands the construction of hypothetical programs containing various levels of each appeal. Canonical correlation provides a methodology that can relate specific tele­ vision appeals to specific groups defined in the audience. 114 Within Media Behavior Pattern Analysis While the canonical correlation does indicate some association between personality and particular patterns of television program viewing, additional insights might be gained by isolating a particular factor for analysis. For example, consider Factor IV in this study. All of the programs defined in the factor were scheduled on Saturday night and were situation comedies. Certainly a further exploration of the patterned viewers of these programs is appropriate.

Between Media Behavior Pattern Analysis Four of the situation comedies in the analysis featured minority casts. In reviewing the factor struc­ ture, it was observed that only one of these programs loaded in a factor containing other situation comedies. Two loaded in factors composed of dramatic programs and the final program was a complex variable not loading in any factor. The between media behavior pattern analysis would attempt to uncover the dimensions of the programs that related to their respective audiences.

Alienation and Media Behavior Of the three personality variables employed in the study, alienation was the salient variable in associa­ tion with patterns of mass media and television program behavior. However, the scale employed to measure 115 alienation (Anomia) was unidimensional. Struening and Richardson (I965) have demonstrated that alienation should be considered as a multidimensional concept composed of such dimensions as: (l) emotional distance, (2) authoritarianism, (3) purposelessness, (4) self­ determinism, (5) family authority, (6) trust and optimism, (?) conventionality, and (8) religious orthodoxy. Further research in this area should give full consideration to the various dimensions of alienation as they relate to mass media behavior. That research should lead to a much greater refinement of the indications suggested by in this study. 116

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alpert, M. I., and R. A. Peterson. On the Interpretation of Canonical Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, £, 187-92.

Anast, P. Personality Determinants of Mass Media Preferences. Journalism Quarterly, 1966, 43, 729-32.

Anderson, J. A. and T. P. Meyer. Functionalism and the Mass Media. Journal of Broadcasting, 1975, 19, 11-23.

Andrews, F. M., J. N. Morgan, and J. A. Sonquist. Multiple Classification Analysis, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1971«

Bailyn, L. Mass Media and Children: A Study of Exposure Habits and Cognitive Effects. Psychologlcal Monographs, 1959, 71, 1-48.

Baker, R. L. and R. E. Shutz. Instructional Product Research. New York: American Book Company, 1972.

Bartlett, M. S. The Statistical Significance of Canonical Correlations. Biometrlka, 1941, 32, 29-38.

______. Multivariate Analysis. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical SocTety, 1947, 9, 176-97.

Becker, S. Toward an Appropriate Theory for Contemporary Speech-Communication. University of Iowa: Un­ published manuscript, May, 1968.

Berne, S. Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relations. New York: Grove Press, 1964.

Boehner, A. P. A Multivariate Investigation of Machi­ avellianism and Task Structure in Four-Man Groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1971.

Bogart, L. Adult Talk About Newspaper Comics. Amerlcan Journal of Sociology, 1955. 61, 26-30.

Budner, S. Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 29-50. 117 118

Cattell, R. B. Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966.

Christie, R. and E. Geis. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1970.

Cooley, C. H. Social Organization. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902. Reprinted by Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956.

Cooley, W. W. and P. R. Lohnes. Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971«

Cooper, S. L. Random Sampling by Telephone - An Improved Method. Journal of Marketing Research, 1964, 2, 45-48.

Crandall, R. The Measurement of Self-Esteem and Related Constructs. J. P. Robinson and P. Shaver (eds.), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973.

Darlington, R. B., S. L. Weinberg, and H. J. Walberg. Canonical Variate Analysis and Related Techniques. Review of Educational Research, 1973» 43, 433-54.

Dean, D. Alienation: Its Meaning and. Measurement. American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 753*58.

DeFleur, M. L. Theories of Mass Communlcation. New York: McKay, 1966.

Deutschman, P. J. The Mass Media in an Underdeveloped Village. Journalism Quarterly, 1963» 40, 27-35«

Dixon, W. J. (Ed.), BMP Biomedical Computer Programs, X- Series Supplement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970, 90-103-

Ebenstein, W. (Ed.). Great Political Thinkers, Plato to Present. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, I960.

Edwards, A. L. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research. New York: Dryden Press, 1957«

Ehrenberg, A. S. C. The Factor Analytic Search for Program Types. Journal of Advertising, 1968, 8, 55-63« 119 Elkin, F. The Psychological Appeal of the Hollywood Western. Journal of Educational Sociology, 1950, 24, 72-86.

Ferguson, G. A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971«

Finn, J. D. Multlvariance; Univariate and Multivariate Analysi s of Variance»Covariance, and Regression. Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Educational Resources, Inc., 1972.

Fletcher, J. E. and H. B. Thompson. Telephone Directory Samples and Random Telephone Number Generation. Journal of Broadcasting, 1974, 18, 187-91.

Frank, R. E., J. C. Becknell, and J. D. Clokey. Tele­ vision Program Types. Journal of Marketing Research, 1971, 8, 204-11.

Gels, F., E. Krupert, and D. Berger. Taking Over in Group Discussion. Unpublished manuscript, New York University, 1965«

Gorsuch, R. L. Factor Analysis. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974.

Greenberg, B., and H. Kumata. National Sample Predictors of Mass Media Use. J ournailsm Quarterly, 1968, 4£, 641-46.

Haskins, J. B. How to Evaluate Mass Communications. New York: Advertising Research Foundation, 1968«

Hazard, W. R. Tension and Television Tendency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1965«

■______. Anxiety and Preference for Television Fantasy. Journalism Quarterly, 1967» 40, 461-69»

Herzog, H. What Do We Really Know About Daytime Serial Listeners? In P. Lazarsfeld and F. Stanton (Eds.), Radio Research: 1943-44. New York: Due11, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944, 3-33»

Himmelweit, H. T., A. N. Oppenheim, and P. Vince. Television and the Child. London: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Horton, D. and R. R. Wohl. Mass Communication and the Para- Social Interaction. Psychiatry, 1956, 19» 215-29« 120

Hotelling H. The Most Predictable Criterion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1935, 26, 139-42.

______. Relations Between Two Sets of Variates. Biometrlka, 1936, 28, 321-77.

Isreal H., and J. P. Robinson. Demographic Characteristics of Television Violence and News Programs. E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, and J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Volume IV: Tele­ vision in Day to Day Life: Patterns of Use. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971.

Katz, E. Communication Research and the Image of Society Convergence of Two Traditions. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 435-440.

______. The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an Hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957. 21, 61-78.

______, and D. Foulkes. On the Uses of Mass Media as ’Escape'. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962, 26, 377-88.

______, and P. F. Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communica­ tion. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955.

Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavorial Research. New York: Holt,.. Rhinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973«

Kirsh, A. D., and. S. Banks. Program Types Defined by Factor Analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, 1962, 2, 29-32.

Klapper, J. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press, i960.

Kline, G. F. and P. J. Tichenor (Eds.). Current Perspec­ tives in Mass Communication Research. Beverly Hills California and London: Sage Publications, 1972.

Lange, D. L., R. K. Baker, and S. J. Ball. Mass Media and Violence, Volume IX: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. 121

Lazarsfeld, P. and R. Merton. Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas, New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 1948.

Lenski, G. and Leggett, J. Caste, Class, and Deference in the Research Interview. American Journal of Sociology, I960, 65, 463-6?.

Lecky, P. Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personality. New yor^. island Press, 1945.

Leuthold, D. A. and R. Scheele. Patterns of Bias in Samples Based on Telephone Directories. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1971. 15. 249-57«

Lewin, K. Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods. American Journal of Sociology, 1939/44. 868-96.

Lichty, L. and J. Riply. American Broadcasting: Intro­ duction and Analysis: Readings, Volume II: Audience, Regulation and Responsibility, Goals, and Effects. Madison, Wisconsin: College Printing and Typing Co., Inc., 1969«

LoSciuto, L. A. A National Inventory of Television Viewing Behavior. In E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, and J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Volume IV: Television in Day-To-Day Life: Patterns of Use, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971«

Luft, J. Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1969«

Maccoby, E. E. Television: Its Impact on School Children. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951. 15. 421-44.

. Why Do Children Watch TV? Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18, 239-44.

Maslow, A. The Psychology of Science. New York: Harper and Row,1966.

Mayer, C. S. The Interviewer and His Environment. Journal of Marketing Research, 1964, 1, 24-31«

McGuire, W. The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley, 1968. 122

McLeod, J. M. and O’Keefe. The Socialization Perspective and Communication Behavior. In F. G. Kline and P. J. Tichenor (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Mass Communication Research, Beverly Hills, California and London: Sage Publications, 1972.

______, S. Ward, and K. Tancill. Alienation and Uses of the Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1965-66, 22, 533-94.

McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: . The Extensions of Man. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1965» ' “

McPhee, W. N. and R. B. Meyersohn. Futures for Radio (1955), New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, 1955«

Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934.

Merton, R. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957»

Monaghan, R. J. P., D. Rarick, and D. A. Williams. Predicting Viewer Preference for New TV Program Concepts. Journal of Broadcasting, 1974, 18, 131-42.

Meyersohn, R. B. Leisure and Television: A Study in Compatibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1965»

Mielke, K. M. Evaluation of Television as a Function of Self-Beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965•

Nunally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967.

Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement? New York, Basic Books, 1966.

Pearlin, L. I. The Social and Psychological Setting of Communications Behavior: An Analysis of Television Viewing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1956.

______. Social and Personal Stress and Escape Television Viewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959» 23, 255-59. 123 Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books, 1954.

Raimy, V. C. The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organization. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1943« Published Columbus: Ohio State University, 1971«

Riley M. W., and J. W. Riley. A Sociological Approach to Communication Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951. 1£, 444-60.

Rim, Y. Machiavellianism and Decisions Involving Risks. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1966, i, 36-50.

Robinson, J. P. Television and Leisure Time: Yesterday, Today, and (Maybe) Tomorrow. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969, U. 210-22.

■______. Towards Defining the Functions of Television. In E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, and J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Volume IV: Television in Day-To-Day Life: Patterns of Use, Washington D. C. : Government Printing Office, 1971.

.______and P. Shaver. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973«

Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1956.

______. The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1968."

Seeman, M. On the Meaning of Alienation. Amerlcan Sociological Review, 1959. 24. 783-91.

Sells, S. Multivariate Technology in Industrial and Military Personnel Psychology. In R. B. Cattel (Sd. ) Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Shostrom, E. L. Man, The Manipulator. Nashville: Abington Press, 1967« 124

Silber, S. and J. Tippett. Self-Esteem: Clinical Assessment and. Measurement Validation. Psycho­ logical Reports, 1965, 16, 1017-71.

Simon, J. L. Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The Art of Empirical Investigation. New York: Random House, 1969.

Smythe, D. Reality as Presented by Television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18, 143-56.

Srole, L. Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study. American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 709-1^

Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953«

______. The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967«

Stewart, D. K. and W. A. Love. A General Canonical Correlation Index. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 20, 160-63.

Struening E. and A. Richardson. A Factor Analytic Exploration of the Alienation, Anomia, and Authori­ tarianism Domains. American Sociological Review, 1965, ¿0, 768-76.

Swanson, C. E. The Frequency Structure of Television and Magazines. Journal of Advertising Research, 1967, 2» 8-14. ' ------

Szasz, T. The Myth of Mental Illness. New York: Harper Brothers, 1961.

Tatsouka, M. M. Multivariate Analysis: Techniques for Educational and Psychological Research. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Troldahl, V. C. Studies of Consumption of Mass Media Content. Journalism Quarterly, 1965» 42» 596-606.

______. A Field Test of a Modified ’Two-Step Flow of Communication’ Model. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966-67, 20, 309-17. 125

Troldahl, V. C. and R. F. Carter. Random Selection of Respondents Within Households in Phone Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 1964, 1, 71-76.

Tucker, R. Canonical Correlational Analysis in Human Communication Research. Unpublished paper, Bowling Green State University, 1975 •

______, and L. Chase, Factor Analysis in Human Communica­ tion Research. Invited paper presented at the International Communication Convention, Chicago, 1975.

. Season Averages for 1974-75 Series. Variety, May 14, 1975-

Waples, D., B. Berelson, and F. R. Bradshaw. What Reading Does to People. Chicago: University of Chicago Pre s s, 1942.

Warner, W. L. and W. E. Henery. The Radio Day Time Serial: A Symbolic Analysis. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1948, 2£, 3-71.

Watt, J. and R. Krull. An Information Theory Measure of Television Content. Madison, Wisconsin: Mass Communication Research Center, University of Wisconsin, 1972.

Weiss, W. Effects of the Mass Media of Communication. In G. Llndzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969*

Wells, W. D. The Rise and Fall of Television Program Types, Journal of Advertising, 1969, 2» 21-27•

Westley, B. H. and L. C. Barrow. An Investigation of News-Seeking Behavior. Journalism Quarterly, 1959. 431-38.

______and M. D. Lynch. Multiple Factor Analysis of Dichotomous Audience Data. Journalism Quarterly, 1962, 22» 369-72.

Wiebe, G. Two Psychological Factors in Media Audience Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969-70» 33» 523-36. 126 Wolfe, K. and. M. Fiske. The Children Talk About Comics. In P. Lazarsfeld and F. Stanton (Eds.), Communica­ tions Research, 1948-1949, New York : Harper and Brothers, 1949» Wright, C. R. Functional Analysis and Mass Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, i960, 24, 605-20. 12?

APPENDIX A 128

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEWER :______DATS :______TELEPHONE NUMBER:______ADDRESS :______(A) Hello, my name is ______, I’m calling for the Center of Communication Research at Bowling Green State University. We’re conducting a survey of audience exposure to television and social attitudes. I would like to ask you a few questions, if its all right. (ONLY IF NECESSARY) All information will be kept con­ fidential. 1. On an average day, about how many hours do you personally spend watching television? ___ Hours/day ___ No TV ___ Never watches TV 2. On an average day, about how many hours do you personally spend listening to the radio at home or in the car? ___ Hours/day ___ No radio ___ Never listens to radio 3. About how often do you read any newspaper? Is it dally, several times a week, a few times a week, weekly, or less often than once a week? ___ Daily ___ Several times ___ A. few times ___ weekly a week a week ___ Less often than once a week 4. In the past year, about how many books have you read? ___ Books/year 5. Are there any magazines you read regularly? Yes No—Go to question 6. 5a. Which ones are they? ______, ______, ______,

> » » » 129 6. During the past month, about how many times have you watched each of the following television programs? Was it once, twice, three times, four times, or not at all? 1. ___ Six Million Dollar Man 2. ___ Cher* 3. ___ World of Disney* 4. ___ NBC Mystery Movie( i.e. Columbo, McLoud, McMillan and Wife, and Amy Prentice)* 5. ___ Kojak* 6. ___ Mannix* ?. ___ Smothers Brothers 8. ___ Gunsmoke* 9. ___ The Rookies* 10. ___ NBC Monday NightM ovie 11. ___ Maude* 12. ___ Rhoda* 13* ___ Medical Center* 14. ___ Good Times* 15. Adam-12 16. ___ M.A.S.H.* 1?. ___ ABC Tuesday NightM ovie 18. ___ Hawaii Five-0* 19» ___ Police Story 20. ___ Barnaby Jones 21. ___ Marcus Welby 22. ___ Tony Orlando andD awn* 23. Little House on the Prairie* 130

24. ___ That’s My Mama

25« ABC Wednesday night movie 26. ___ Cannon* 27. ___ Lucas Tanner 28. ___ Get Christie Love 29. ___ Petrocelll 30. ___ The Manhunter 31. ___ The Waltons* 32. ___ Mac Davis 33. ___Karen 34. ___ CBS Thursday Night Movie 35- ___ Streets of San Francisco* 36. ___Movi n’ On 37- ___Harry 0. 38. Khan 39. ___ Sanford and Son* 40. ___ Kolchak 41. ___ Chico and the Man* 42. ___ CBS Friday Night Movie 43. ___ The Rockford Files* 44. ___ The Odd Couple 45. ___ Police Woman* 46. ___ Kung Fu 47. Emergency* 48. All in the Family* 49. The Jeffersons* 131 50. NBC Saturday Night Movie 51. ABC Saturday Night Movie 52. ___ Mary Tyler Moore* 53» ___ Bob Newhart* 54. ___ Carol Burnett* 55. ___ Barney Miller *Indicates programs included in analysis.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 1. What is your date of birth? ' (Month) (Year) 2. Are you married now and living with your (husband/wife)— or are you widowed, divorced, separated, or have you never married. 1. ___ Married and living with spouse (or spouse in service ). 2. ___ Widowed 3. ___ Divorced 4. ___ Separated 5. ___ Never Married 3. Now I want to ask you about work. Are you working for pay, either full-time or part-time? ___ 1. Yes — (or has job but not working just now— on vacation, sick, laid off but expecting to be recalled, etc.) 0. No —

If R Is Male 3a. Are you unemployed, retired, a student, or what? 3. ___ Unemployed — Turn to Question 4 132 4. ___ Retired — Turn to Question -----4 5» ___ Student — Turn to Question 4 6. Other (Describe): ______Turn to Question 4

If R is Female 36. Are you a housewife, unemployed, retired, a student or what? 2. ___Housewife — Turn to Question -----4 3. ___ Unemployed -- Turn to Question 4 4. ___ Retired — Turn to Question -----

5. ___ Student — Turn to Question 4 6. ___ Other (Describe): Turn to Question 4 4. What is your main occupation? (What sort of work do you do?) (IF NOT CLEAR: Tell me a little more about what you do.)

4a. What kind of (business/industry) is that in?

IF R NOT MARRIED TURN TO QUESTION 6. 5. Is your husband/wife doing any work for money now? ___ 1. Yes ___ 0. No 5a. Has (he/she) done any work for money in the past twelve months? 3. Yes 5. No — Turn to Question 6 133 5b. What is his/her main occupation? (What sort of work does he/she do?) (IF NOT CLEAR: Tell me a little more about what he/she does. )

5c. What kind of (business/industry) is that in?

5d Does he/she work for someone else, himself/herself, or what? ___ 1. Someone Else ___ 2. Both Someone Else and Self ___ 3. Self Only 6. What was the highest grade of school or year of college you completed? GRADE SCHOOL 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 COLLEGE 13 14 15 16 17+ 6a. Did you get a high school graduation diploma or pass a high school equivalency test? 1. Yes 2. No 6b. Have you attended college? ___1. Yes ___ 2. No 6c. Do you have a college degree? ___ Yes ______3. No 5« Respondent’s sex is ___ 1. Male 2. Female 6. Respondent’s race is ___ 1. White 2. Black OTHER:

i*#**#**####**###*#*#***#*#*##*# In order to complete this interview we would like to ask you 134 a few more questions. These questions concern some of your social attitudes, and it would be difficult for me to record your responses over the telephone. Therefore, we would like to send a questionnaire to your home. It should only take a few minutes of your time and would contribute greatly to this research project. When you have completed the questionnaire, they can be returned in the prepaid envelope included with the questionnaire. May I please have your name and address?

We appreciate your cooperation in this survey, thank you, Good bye. 135

APPENDIX B 136

APPENDIX B

March 3, 1975

Dear Respondent: We deeply appreciate your participation in this research project. It is being conducted in affiliation with the Center for Communication Research at Bowling Green State University. All information obtained in the survey will be kept confidential, no commercial use will be made of the results. Your name will only be used to match the questions you answered over the telephone with the question­ naire you will mail to us. The mailing of the questionnaire completes your participation in this survey. I guarantee that you will not be contacted again. It is essential that the same member of your family who participated in the phone interview also complete the questionnaire. It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. While you may find that some of the questions do not apply to the "way you feel,” it is important that you respond to every question. This research will contribute to a greater under­ standing of the types of television programs people enjoy viewing. If you would like any additional information concerning this research, please indicate that desire on your questionnaire. I will be happy to provide you with any information. Thank you. Sincerely, /s/Joseph C. Philport Joseph Philport Doctoral Fellow Bowling Green State University

JP/lfb 137

APPENDIX B (continued) RESPONDENT’^ NAME:______(MACH V) You will find 20 groups of statements listed below. Each group is composed of three statements. Each statement refers to a way of thinking about people or things in general. They reflect opinions and not matters of fact — there are no right or wrong answers and different people have been found to agree with different statements. Please read each of the three statements in each group. Then decide first which of the statements is most true or comes the closest to describing your own beliefs. Place a plus (+) in the space provided on the answer sheet. Just decide which of the remaining two statements is most false or is the farthest from your own beliefs. Place aminus (-) in the space provided on the answer sheet. Here is an example: ___ A. It is easy to persuade people but hard to keep them persuaded. + B. Theories that run counter to common sense are a waste of time. - C. It is only common sense to go along with what other people are doing and not be too different. In this case, statement B would be the one you believe in most strongly and A and C would be ones that are not characteristic of your opinion. Statement C would be the one you believe in least strongly and is least charac­ teristic of your beliefs. You will find some choices easy to make: others will be quite difficult. Do not fail to make a choice no matter how hard it may be. You will mark two statements in each group of three — the one that comes closest to your own beliefs with a + and the one farthest from your beliefs with a -. The remaining statement should be left unmarked. Do not omit any group of statements.

**####* 138

1.___ A. It takes more imagination to be a successful criminal than a successful business man. ___ B. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" contains a lot of truth. ___ C. Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property. 2.___ A. Men are more concerned with the car they drive than with the clothes their wives wear. B. It is very important that imagination and creativity in children be cultivated. ___ G. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. 3 * A. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so. B. The well-being of the individual is the goal that should be worked for before anything else. C. Once a truely intelligent person makes up his mind about the answer to a problem he rarely continues to think about it. 4.___ k. People are getting so lazy and self-indulgent that it is bad for our country. ___ B. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. ___ C. It would be a good thing if people were kinder to others less fortunate than themselves. 5.___ k. Most people are basically good and kind. ___ B. The basic criteria for a wife or husband is com­ patibility — other characteristics are nice but not essential. ___ C. Only after a man has gotten what he wants from life should he concern himself with the injustices in the world. 139 6 e A* Most people who get ahead In the world lead clean moral lives. ___ B. Any man worth his salt shouldn’t be blamed for putting his career above his family. ___ C. People would be better off if they were concerned less with how to do things and more with what to do 7» A good teacher is one who points out unanswered questions rather than gives explicit answers. ___ B. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight. ___ C. A person’s job is the best single guide as to the sort of person he is. 8.___ A. The construction of such monumental works as the Egyptian pyramids was worth the enslavement of the workers who built them. ___ B. Once a way of handling problems has been worked out it is best to stick to it. ___ C. One should take action only when sure that it is morally right. 9.___ A. The world would be a much better place to live in if people would let the future take care of itself and concern themselves only with the present. ___ B. It is wise to flatter important people. ___ C. Once a decision has been made, it is best to keep changing it as new circumstances arise. 10.___ A. It is a good policy to act as if you are doing the things you do because you have no other choice. ___ B. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. ___ C. Even the most hardened and vicious criminal has a spark of decency somewhere within him. 11.___ A. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest. 140 B. A man who Is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding in whatever he wants to do. C. If a thing does not help us in our daily lives, it isn’t very important. 12. A. A person shouldn’t be punished for breaking a law which he thinks is unreasonable. B. Too many criminals are not punished for their crime. C. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. 13. A. Generally speaking, men won’t work hard unless they’re forced to do so. B. Every person is entitled to a second chance, even after he commits a serious mistake. C. People who can’t make up their minds aren’t worth bothering about. 14.___ A. A man’s first responsibility is to his wife, not his mother. ___ B. Most men are brave. C. It’s best to pick friends that are Intellectually stimulating rather than ones it is comfortable to be around. 15. A. There are very few people in the world worth con­ cerning oneself about. B. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. C. A. capable person motivated for his own gain is more useful to society than a well-meaning but ineffective one. 16.___ k. It is best to give others the impression that you can change your mind easily. B. It is a good working policy to keep on good terms with everyone. C. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. 141 17. ___ k. It is possible to be good in all respects. ___ B. To help oneself is good: to help others even better. ___ C. War and threats of war are unchangeable facts of human life. 18. ___k, Barnum was probably right when he said that there’s at least one sucker born every minute. ___ B. Life is pretty dull unless one deliberately stirs up some excitement. ___ C. Most people would be better off if they controlled their emotions. 19. ___ k. Sensitivity to the feelings of others is worth more than poise in social interaction. ___ B. The ideal society is one where everybody knows his place and accepts it. ___ C. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. 20. ___ k. People who talk about abstract problems usually don’t know what they are talking about. B. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. ___ C. It is essential for the functioning of a democracy that everyone votes.

# * # # # # *

(ANOMIA) Listed below are several single items. Please respond to each statement in the following manner: (1) Place an ”x" next to agree if you agree with the statement. (2) Place an ”x” next to disagree if you disagree with the statement. (3) Place an ”x” next to can’t decide if you can’t decide whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Remember that for each statement, there will be an 142

”x” placed next to either agree, disagree, or can’t decide.

*####*#

1. There’s little use writing to public officials because they often aren’t really interested in the problems of the average man. agree ____ disagree can’t decide 2. Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. agree ____ disagree ____ can’t decide 3. In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average man Is getting worse, not better. ____ agree ____ disagree can’t decide 4. It’s hardly fair to bring children into the world with the way things look for the future. agree ____ disagree ____ can’t decide 5. These days a person doesn’t really know whom he can count on. agree ____ di sagree can’t decide 143 6. Most people really don’t care -what happens to the next fellow.

agree ____ disagree ____ can’t decide ?. Next to health, money is the most important thing in life.

agree ____ disagree ____ can’t decide 8. You sometimes can’t help wondering whether anything is worthwhile. agree ____ di sagree can’t decide 9. To make money there are no right and wrong ways anymore, only easy and hard ways. agree ____ disagree ____ can’t decide ##*#*#*

(SELF-ESTEEM) Please respond to each of these statements in the following manner: (1) Place an ”x” next to strongly agree if you strongly agree with the statement. (2) Place an ”xn next to agree if you agree with the statement. (3) Place an ”x” next to disagree if you disagree with the statement. (4) Place an ”x” next to strongly disagree if you strongly disagree with the statement. 144 Remember, that for each statement, there will be an "x” placed, next to either strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal basis. ___ strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. ___ strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. strongly agree agree ___ di sagree ___ strongly disagree 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 5. I feel that I do not have much to be proud of. strongly agree ___agree 145 ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree ?. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. ___ strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 9. I certainly feel useless at times. ___ strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree 10. At times I think I am no good at all. ___ strongly agree agree ___ disagree ___ strongly disagree THANK YOU 146

APPENDIX C 147 APPENDIX C

SCORING KEY FOR MACH V (1968) Points per Item by Response Patterns

1 1 i 2 1 A+ B+ A+ B+ C+ C+ C- C- B- A- B- A-

2 A+ B+ A+ B+ C+ c+ C- C- B- A- B- A-

3 C+ B+ C+ B+ A+ A+ A- A- B- C- B- c- 4 A+ C+ A+ C+ B+ B+ B- B- C- A- C- A- 5 A+ C+ A+ C+ B+ B+ B- B- C- A- C- A- 6 A+ B+ A+ B+ C+ C+ C- C- B- A- B- A-

7 B+ C+ B+ C+ A+ A+ A- A- C- B- C- B- 8 c+ A+ C= A+ B+ B+ B- B- A- C- A- C-

9 C+ A+ C+ A+ B+ B+ B- B- A- C- A- C-

10 A+ C+ A+ C+ B+ B+ B- B- C- A- C- A- 11 A+ C+ A+ C+ B+ B+ B- B- C- A- C- A-

12 C+ A+ C+ A+ B+ B+ B- B- A- C- A- C-

13 C+ B+ C+ B+ A+ A+ A- A- B- C- B- C- 14 B+ A+ B+ A+ C+ C+ C- C- A- B- A- B- 148 APPENDIX C (continued) Item # 1 1 1 2 15 c+ A+ C+ A+ B+ B+ B- B- A- C- A- C- 16 C+ A+ C+ A+ B+ B+ B- B- A- C- A- C-

17 A+ B+ A+ B+ C+ C+ C- C- B- A- B- A— 18 C+ B+ C+ B+ A+ A+ A- A- B- C- B- c- 19 B+ A+ B+ A+ C+ C+ C- C— A- B- A- B- 20 A+ C+ A+ C+ B+ B+ B- B- C- A- C- A— Sum for all 20 items and add. constant of 20. Range: 40 160. 149

APPENDIX D 150

AFPEljüIX u

hfiSS nEI IA LOriSUrhTlCil. PFRSSI.Al iTY APlD GCi u-ifaR APHI C GATA

THF FI FS T_ CAPO iS I EAF AS f.'> Ex, ■< ppi.r______l = 9l'CJEuT IOEIJTIFXCt.TTUH l"U»>jEp (f = 124)______,______3=t."<>,£ IguTEL TLlEVISICH CLHcg.OPTION ( I ,OURS/faA Y )______;______'_____4s«ClGhTE0 1 ELE y 1 S T Gl i ÇUriSfFTXûti Fill ANALYSIS______,______.______S = UrivaÊ. I fati T ELU RAE'IC cghSUPiFTTGII (HGUFS/L'Ây)______;______■______ósuClGHTEP KAÜIg ~Cn!,£i'f-;FTH.’! FüF Afif.lYSlS______;______5=HFtóSFAFEß CülISL^FT IQF______3C=liNwEIGHTEO BCÜK CüfISUWPTTUfl (PEp yEAR) ------_____------5.56e = «EIC-HTE0 CGOk Cgî ,SGf'EtI Gw FUR ANALYSIS (SF’ljAPE ¡(GUT OF N+l ) 3 = L»kvXXbhTEU CeHSU' r TIGi": GF ? XisF S READ REPLI. ARLY 4 = v. E16HT E U PAGAZUT COÎjSUP PtIOI'i FUR Alalysi* lûesMCH y atti ruüg iHVEi'.TQpy 6=AfiGMlfi______;______4 = ?El F-EsTELM 1 = AC-E 4 = ÇGC I CEC LÍ ,üi-" IC STATU? ____5=EQUCA TIG I i______,______ôi=fewalé (1u=mle>______■______1 3 4 O è 5 30 5.56c 3 44 lOfa 4 i 45 Cl <* 5.5 ¿.5 lu 11 3 6 2.646 2 í 94 £ 7 1 15 10 4 5 4 4 4 3 3.1'00 3 u 102 3 7 5 45 Cl U 2 3 3 c 36 fa . o 3 3 5 0 112 7 '2 24 '111 c. o 4 c 9 5 luülU.oCO 3 96 4 5 1 14 OI A 3.5 4.5 * c 1.5 1 5 2.449 0 i 9U X 4 2 12 01 7 fa 5 «L C' 3.5 5 3 2.000 3 4 76 i 5 5 - 1 1C P 3 4 1 2 5 25_ 5.u99 1 94 é 7 ,2.13 13. . c «. » - w * W 1.5 2,5 z 1 1.414 3 U ino b 5 1 lu i!) 1 fi 1 2 * c 1.5 u 5 2.449 2 3 100 2 3 2 Ufa ip u 7 fa 1.5 2.5 tí * 2 1_, 7 52 2 ó ino 2 7 o 34 C1 1? 1.5 2.5 1. = 2, o c; bü 7.C1U 5 c 103 1 7 0 4 -, £ x 15 2 3 • c- 1.5 c. 4 2 , ¿ Ô 6 1 ¿ 104 1 6 5 44 Cl lu 2 3 2 3 5 0 - 1 »U.Q 4 3 4 10 ó _ i- . _7_l. 46_lll . ._ LS 5 c ô 4 1 in 3.517 0 j 92 . .3 i_li 0J_ 16 5 6 4 5 12 3 . c G ò 5 O 97 5 .. .5.6_24 Oj. 17 3 4 <¿ 3 c 1 4 .3..-7 3 _ 1 £Í 9fa 4 6 2 4 5. 18 12 13 1.5 5 35 6 . V G V 2 114 4 7 2 ?u 01 ______L?______2 ¿ 4 5 3n 5. obb 1 £. 1114 1 ______f; 2 14 G i______2F u 5 -, 2 - 3 50 7.gi5.1 . 3 3 ó ? 5 ï 73 Cl 21 ô U 3 4 ¿n 4.721 3 4 ino 4 6 1 ' 3 C1 22 1 e. » 2 5 1 = 4 . U Û 0 u L 94 4 1 5 í 1 n 2,3 _Jl 2. . ó 4 ______3 0.b_ 2______3___ lOfa _ .6._L -23.-01______¿4 5 ó i 2 5 4 2 . V 0 0 1 9¿. 4 5 5 4 b 1 ? 2 5 3 4 2 3 Ó UO Ó . H C o 0 1 9fc -, 7. _l ;i> in _ 2é 2 G 4 5 5 bü 7.141 6 7 102 7. _____7_ ]__ 3.U. 0 ]______. 27 4 5 i 2 5 ¿5 5.099 5 u 96 u 7 1 15 01 26 3 1 1 2 5 ü 1.4 0 Ó 3 u. .1U5 4 5 .6 1 2...ol. ___ ..... c 29 “ 1 2 - 5 1.5 5 7 2»c.23._ 2 Ò 119 . .... 6 1. 35 .10------sr U 0 2 3 5 2 1 .'7 32 0 -L. 1(14 4 a 3 5.3 01 __ . ______3l______j.2.___1.5 lg 13 Ó 2 c .6.,o00’_ 5 t? 96 _ 4 __ 2 I..43 Cl. ... O 52 .5 1.5 X 5 u .2»2_57 1 ¿ 9Ù .J. .7 .1 -U i 1 ... ____ 33 4 5 1 / 1 5 s 2 1.722 3 4 1 0 b p 7 4 3 Û 1 3 u „1.5 __2.^5 J 1 5 1 2 3 Ó b 0 1 F>9 ..4 ._____3 u. .3.3.. .19. 35 3 4 4 25015..1! .2 . ¿ 106 . .7 .2 31. 01...... Ob D 7 9 ti 1 -LU 1.4 _ 2 3 . lió b 6_2_5_u i¿ ______51____ 1 2 □ b 5 2 ._ 1... 96 t .. -.6 .1 ..34 . i-1...... x a 5 fa 1 3 6 3.i ó 4 u 9 o •p ... .5 .I.-.54 ..C i...... 39 ó.5 7.5 - -Z. 5 0 LUtJi.- 0 L. 27 4 ____ 5_.¿_33_iC_____.... í UC 2,5 3 1 2 I 2 U.3.? 2 94 . .5 ¿_ i¿ .01 4 L 4.5 □ c 1.5 ó 0 1 . o C 0 0 1_ 93 p -7_.2_.13. -1C...... - U 9 fa 9 - 9 0 1 . uCO. ? □ _..LU .... -2 1 L5-.lt-...... 4 S ..,.5 .. 1 2 4 . 9 -3._16¿ . 1. _.¿ .. 4?____ _..‘2 2.23..o 1.. — 44 2_ _3_ c. 3 . 3_. _ 4 - i . é í ?l lu . . c 45 5 4 <4 □ LU 41.0 '-'5 Ì 2 . A 9? J...... - .3 .23..-Ul —...... ______A6______...2______c .1.5 tí_____ 1».Í2'J 2____—0 __ 112 .. .. __1 3.12 19 ti ______47______...y __b.,.5_..^..0______2. L »./ c¿ u . _ 4_ _90____ _4_.____ 3 1_1¿. Cl . tf.lL- . _ . i» .il. 4 .1. r ..1..UÇ.Ô- __. 0______j___ ...92...... ____ 7_4..U- 0 2...... __..49_ . 4_____ t___ . ..1___ .. t-_...... 5...... 3 2. uto .3 ..._ .u 102. ... ■Z _ . 3 .1.. 4‘t C 1 ... ou. . _ . ..5 1.3 e_ 3 _í ? C. 5 a - ? '? 4 9 J tí 7. i 3i. 10 151

------ai.... ______¡L 1 . 'i 1.4 - z 1 U 4 4 .. ,4 ,-4b.. —4 1------5? Z 3 3 3 5 ? .-»49 .3 u 104 1 6 1 4 i r 53 3 4 3 4 ..2...... ------Li- 3 , o ü 6 4 b 1 0 O 4 7. t 22- Su 6 7 0 1 5 i 3 .-,17 X 4 1 0 4 4 7 4 PX h i s 5 4 3 Ö -3^jlÜ Ci 6 7 °b .. 4_ .6. -1 3-3.. ítl 56 i 2 o 9 5 fe 2,o4fe 2 3 8 6 2 •3 4 4 3 01 57 3 4 i 2 5 10 3. oi7 1 2 94 5 6 6 4 S 01. ... □ S Z 3 é 2 0 2 1.7 3? 5 to 102 4 X 4 ?3 1 <■ 5° Z 3 4 s 4 ..2«v.3tS . „2. ¿ 36 1 £ 4 4 4 i n fe i*. Z 3 2 3 5 15 4. -j e o 1 2 98 i 4 6 PO :■ 1 é>l 4 5 {. c 2.5 5 0 1 c 94 3 to 1 22 LI 62 1 2 ¿ 3 5 1uUld.v5Q 3 4 36 1 A 3 45_ 1 0 63 3 + Q 4 15 4 . 0 c 2 O 113 3 4 1 13 in 64 ¿ 3 4 C 5 1 3 3.01 7 3 <4 10 4 z 7 o 4 3 i c 65 '¿ 3 ó 7 5 ?7 5,92 2 0 100 4 5 i 1 3 C1 66 1 2 4 5 b 1 U 0 1 ü . j 3 c 2 3 88 2 - 1 P4 J¿1 67 ¿ 3 2 5 53 7. ¡4i ? 3 104 1 H I 0 6ô 4 5 5 6 • 5 7n 3.4?ó fe 7 94 s 5 0 0 69 1 2 1 11 5 1 0 3.017 10 i 1 10 o 4 A ! 34 01 c 7e o 7 1 2 5 2.4 49 2 3 7Ò J 4 Ji-lJ______7j___ LÇ XI -2 3 Z L2 3 . o 0 o 4 5 104 1 7 5. .2.5- LC . 7? Ó Ó 3 i 0 ,1..4C 1 0 ____ 114 3 7 4 * "i u 75 1 2 - 2 5 ü 1 . o 0 C 5 o 102 3 4 4 4 = rc- lu 4 5 5 1.5 K - ... ü l.^U' 3 u 9o 5 7 5 2? ! 0 75 6 9 ,, 3 4 30 ? 0 9d 2 ez i 01 7 6 2 3 Q 9 5 12 3 . c• b c 3 1 9? z £ 3__i 3_ fel 77 □ ó 4 5 5 4 . 2...¿jo 2. 3 70 4 6 _1_ ?..ÍL--C.1 . c 7fe 2 3 5 fe.5 5 1 1.-+14 1 p 96 7 5 2? 10 7e 2 2 Z 3 4 1 1.414 3 4 11.2 7 5 4 I 3 _Ö1__ .... . Ôf! 5 Ó i r. 5 C 1 . o U í? 4 5 94 6 3 1 4 4 Cl Ö1 5 fe o 7 5 1 5 3 u 90 5 4 “■ 3 Cl 2?2 33 ‘ 3 4 o b 4 1 2 '96 i Ó ó .33. C 1 ¿3 4 5 3 6 4 4 _¿«.Z ¿6__ 1 z 95 3 5 .3 . 33- é 4 4 V fe c 1Û 3. ife2 2 z 114 5 4 1 ? 3 1 fc-jj 1 2 ¿ 7 5 4 2.2 36 4 5 lió „.i- 6 -1 13 L0— 66 2 3 5 fe 5 30 5.5 fe -3 1 í' 109 2 8 2 33_0i__ 67 2 3 1 2 r 5 2. u e c 2 3 100 6 2 55 10 Hé Ü 4 6 7 1 fe 2.u4fe 2 94 u 7.213. Q 1 6$ 1 ¿ 1 2 5 7 2.a24 3 4 96 tú 7 1 16 01 50 5 6 4 3 1 5 4. u u e 0 1 96 J 7 ..¿_?4 cl 91 2 3 Ì 2 3 3 2 . J fe U 1 93 3 7 1 ! í 1 p c. 9? ü 1 Z 3 -25 4.063 3 4 103 4 7 4 í¿_.|>L_ ____ 53 1 2 'ó 7 5 5 2.449 5 o 92 3 7 4u 01 94 4 5 to 7 5 10 3.017 3 u 102 - x .3. 3_3„.1.0 9 e-. 2 Ó 1 2 5 40 6. -4-113 3 t_ 5 6 1 7 2 8.1 -CL. -- .. Se 2 3 4 5 u. l5 4 .0 Ù 4 6 9? 7 2 P * 0 1 57 4 u a 7 1 1 i) 010 . ¿ 51; 2 b 91 I 7 1 ?4 0 1 c 96 1.5 r? ö 3 1501.2.205 2 E4 5 7 b 4 4 .CL - ... . 9^ 3,5 4.5 0 4 5 2 1,73? 6 ; 102 5 7 4 3 5 ±JL_ . - C . 1, :•> lül! 2 X 2 •24 w . u U U 4 n 102 1 7 .!_ '4b._. Il...... ,.1Q1 • a— 1.5 o 7 3 2 . 1.732 1 «c 100 4 ? 5 10______fc. ie? 3.5 c. 3 6 2.246 2 2 94 _ X_ 4 o 4l i-0 10 3 Z b 7 b U 1.vÜÛ 0 .. 1 104 4 8 2 1‘-.. 1” ...... 104 □ o 1 Z 5 2 1./52 3 U 102 4 7 5 v» t 1 10 = 3.5 4.5 Z 3 1 2U 4.3« 5 1 Z 9e ? A 1 4 4 t -J lOfe 5 4 1 2 1 3 2 . >- 0 0 U „X _ 102 r. 4 4 .3 3.-1.0______107 6 7 i 2 1 12 3.6 0 ó 0 i 9b 4 6 Ì 2 5 1Q 1C6 b 7 1 Z 5 Iù0i0.ù50 3 u 114 3 7 2 35 0-1 1U9 5 Ó b 7 1 . 1Ä 3.731 4 b 94 .. Z. 6 .4. 4_4_1.ü ____ _ lir 1.5 Z. 5 .5 1.5 5 7 Z . o Z 5 1 Z °fe -1. 7 I...2 5.10 ...... 111 3 4 4.5 5,5 5 2 1.Z32 1 X llu r 8 j_3 3_re______112 3 Z 3 5 4 2.256 .1.. . Z .112 6 4 Q UU iti 113 1.5 Z . 5 <5 1.5 5 12 3.abó Ó 7 Om C A 4 5,', i û 1 1 u 3 4 5 u î.euo 2 3 q4 b 7 3 24 10 c 115 1.5 -.Z .L.C _ 1 . . .. -1.0 3.217 0 1 104 6 _ . L 4.6 . l.i 11-, 4 5 to 7 3 .. l5 4.l(”'._ 2 10c z . .0 4 lì .'1 117 cL . — 3.5 7 6 b ?4 5. u e •> 2 96 6 ó ^_2i 11 ____ .. 11.6...... 1____ Z 4 5 5 ..._...... 4 2,43c. 2 ...A .10? 4- c.. 3 75. __ __ 11° -____ 3____ _4_____ z _3____ b ______3 .? . U 1» U 5 ._Q'> . . 1.... _ .7 2 ?5i il 12r- 7 V 5.5 k.1' b 7 P • 9 '• 0 i 112 7 p c • 5 11 U ___ 121...... O 4 O 9 - ... . 4 l.vl'û . 0 - 1— l'i'l 4 7. 5.2 5 le . .... 12?. .. 4___ _b_____ -X.___ _z____ Lu0iQ .. 2„ . 6 2 _ J .. - 7 b Z b *• 1 X

APPENDIX E

155

APPENDIX F

158

APPENDIX G 159

APPENDIX G

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SAMPLE

Age Number Per Centage 18 - 29 years 47 38# 30 - 39 years 24 19# 40 - 49 years 18 14# 50 - 59 years 17 60 - 69 years 7 6# 70+ years 11 _2# Total 12$ 100# Socioeconomic Status Number Per Centage 1 (Low) 34 27# 2 27 22# 3 32 26# 4 28 23# 5 (High) 2# Total 100# Education Number Per Centage

1-8 years 3 2# 9 -12 years 12 10# High School Degree 56 45# 13-16 years 33 27# College Degree 9 7# College Degree + 11 Total 12$ 100#

Sex Number Per Centage Male 48 e°ì Female 74 39# Not Identified 2 __1# Total 12$ 100#